if it was just 2(9+3) = then yes it would be 24. But the parenthesis is now DONE. You can forget the PE in PEMDAS because now you're focused on the multiplication/division which is interchangeable like stated before. So 48/2 takes lead over 2(12). If there was no left to right rule the answer would be 2.
48÷2(9+3) = ???
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by n1k3b4ller,
- Start date
- 942
- 14
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2006
reposted from page 24...
-waystinthyme
- 942
- 14
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2006
reposted from page 24...
-waystinthyme
- 2,785
- 202
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2007
wow 49 pages of this
- 2,785
- 202
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2007
wow 49 pages of this
- 1,871
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
If the x is redundant, then we're still agreeing that 2(9+3) = 2 x 12 = 24. How does the 12 suddenly jump to the 48 if it was originally in the denominator of the equation?
Yes you are right, but you cannot perform that operation of 2x12=24 because the division shows up before it in the equation. The 12 isn't in the denominator of this equation, there are not parentheses to for sure indicate it is in the denominator. The problem as written is 48/2 multiplied by (9+3). The 48/2 is division and has to occur before you could do 2x12=24. You have to do 48/2 then times 12. If what you are saying would be true, the problem would be written 48/(2(9+3)) or 48÷(2(9+3))
THERE IS NO DENOMINATOR OR NUMERATOR. THERE IS ONLY DIVISON. If there was a denominator or numerator they would both have to be seperated in seperate parenthesis.
1 / 2 is really written as (1) / (2) if it was a fraction
3x over 3x would be written as (3x) / (3x)
Yep. And if it was 3x/3x that is really (3x^2)/(3). All that can be taken from the original 3x/3x is that 3x is divided by 3 and what you get there is multiplied by x.
- 1,871
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
If the x is redundant, then we're still agreeing that 2(9+3) = 2 x 12 = 24. How does the 12 suddenly jump to the 48 if it was originally in the denominator of the equation?
Yes you are right, but you cannot perform that operation of 2x12=24 because the division shows up before it in the equation. The 12 isn't in the denominator of this equation, there are not parentheses to for sure indicate it is in the denominator. The problem as written is 48/2 multiplied by (9+3). The 48/2 is division and has to occur before you could do 2x12=24. You have to do 48/2 then times 12. If what you are saying would be true, the problem would be written 48/(2(9+3)) or 48÷(2(9+3))
THERE IS NO DENOMINATOR OR NUMERATOR. THERE IS ONLY DIVISON. If there was a denominator or numerator they would both have to be seperated in seperate parenthesis.
1 / 2 is really written as (1) / (2) if it was a fraction
3x over 3x would be written as (3x) / (3x)
Yep. And if it was 3x/3x that is really (3x^2)/(3). All that can be taken from the original 3x/3x is that 3x is divided by 3 and what you get there is multiplied by x.
- 4,081
- 67
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2003
why on earth is this going to reach 1000 posts?
- 4,081
- 67
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2003
why on earth is this going to reach 1000 posts?
- 2,614
- 47
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
because it's more important then why Kayne is dating an 18 year oldOriginally Posted by bjm5295
why on earth is this going to reach 1000 posts?
- 2,614
- 47
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
because it's more important then why Kayne is dating an 18 year oldOriginally Posted by bjm5295
why on earth is this going to reach 1000 posts?
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- 42,963
- 15,346
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
So is it 2? I'm not a great math person, but that was what I got yesterday, and what I still have today.
There shouldn't be this much debate to this.
Some MIT professor come in here to shut this down
There shouldn't be this much debate to this.
Some MIT professor come in here to shut this down
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- 42,963
- 15,346
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
So is it 2? I'm not a great math person, but that was what I got yesterday, and what I still have today.
There shouldn't be this much debate to this.
Some MIT professor come in here to shut this down
There shouldn't be this much debate to this.
Some MIT professor come in here to shut this down
- 1,871
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
From Page 4:Originally Posted by McRaptor
because it's more important then why Kayne is dating an 18 year oldOriginally Posted by bjm5295
why on earth is this going to reach 1000 posts?
- 1,871
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
From Page 4:Originally Posted by McRaptor
because it's more important then why Kayne is dating an 18 year oldOriginally Posted by bjm5295
why on earth is this going to reach 1000 posts?
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
I just posted the equation on my uncle's FB. He's an engineer at NASA and graduated from MIT.Originally Posted by amel223
So is it 2? I'm not a great math person, but that was what I got yesterday, and what I still have today.
There shouldn't be this much debate to this.
Some MIT professor come in here to shut this down
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- 42,963
- 15,346
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
THERE IS NO DENOMINATOR OR NUMERATOR. THERE IS ONLY DIVISON. If there was a denominator or numerator they would both have to be seperated in seperate parenthesis.
1 / 2 is really written as (1) / (2) if it was a fraction
3x over 3x would be written as (3x) / (3x)
Zis is intereesting. Game change-ing post
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
I just posted the equation on my uncle's FB. He's an engineer at NASA and graduated from MIT.Originally Posted by amel223
So is it 2? I'm not a great math person, but that was what I got yesterday, and what I still have today.
There shouldn't be this much debate to this.
Some MIT professor come in here to shut this down
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- 42,963
- 15,346
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
THERE IS NO DENOMINATOR OR NUMERATOR. THERE IS ONLY DIVISON. If there was a denominator or numerator they would both have to be seperated in seperate parenthesis.
1 / 2 is really written as (1) / (2) if it was a fraction
3x over 3x would be written as (3x) / (3x)
Zis is intereesting. Game change-ing post
- 1,994
- 29
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
what's the issue, divide first or multiply first?
multiply first: 48 / (2*(9+3)) = 2
divide first: (48/2) * (9+3) = 288
the way the problem is written it's ambiguous. whatever operation you do first determines what answer you get
multiply first: 48 / (2*(9+3)) = 2
divide first: (48/2) * (9+3) = 288
the way the problem is written it's ambiguous. whatever operation you do first determines what answer you get
- 1,994
- 29
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
what's the issue, divide first or multiply first?
multiply first: 48 / (2*(9+3)) = 2
divide first: (48/2) * (9+3) = 288
the way the problem is written it's ambiguous. whatever operation you do first determines what answer you get
multiply first: 48 / (2*(9+3)) = 2
divide first: (48/2) * (9+3) = 288
the way the problem is written it's ambiguous. whatever operation you do first determines what answer you get
- 3,254
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
Originally Posted by Mark Antony
Originally Posted by E3LAL
Originally Posted by GRyPR33
46 pages!
Some of you are thinking the parenthesis only mean multiplication, but they also automatically associate anything in the parenthesis to the value directly outside the parenthesis.
So do it this way, replace (9+3) with x
[h3]48 ÷ 2x =
[/h3]48
2x
48
2(9+3) =
2
2x and 2(9+3) are handled the same way
[h3]
[/h3][h3]
[/h3][h3]
[/h3][h3]48 ÷ 2 * (9+3)= 288 though
[/h3]
Unless I'm horribly mistaken, you do whatever is in the parenthesis first then you do multiplying/division in the order that it comes in...my TI-84 said it is 288 btw.
It is not even a mind=blowing question
Yes but the 2 is still touching the parenthesis. When have you had an algebra problem that rewrites as 2(x)=2*x instead of 2(x)=2x? Having the 2 makes sense. And people not reading and just posting smilies and making dumb comments with the utmost confidence are what's wrong with this country, not the folks using their brain on either side with solid arguments.
I'll rewrite the equation for you
[h3]48÷2(9+3)=48 x .5 x (9+3)= 48 x .5 x 12=288
[/h3]
- 3,254
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
Originally Posted by Mark Antony
Originally Posted by E3LAL
Originally Posted by GRyPR33
46 pages!
Some of you are thinking the parenthesis only mean multiplication, but they also automatically associate anything in the parenthesis to the value directly outside the parenthesis.
So do it this way, replace (9+3) with x
[h3]48 ÷ 2x =
[/h3]48
2x
48
2(9+3) =
2
2x and 2(9+3) are handled the same way
[h3]
[/h3][h3]
[/h3][h3]
[/h3][h3]48 ÷ 2 * (9+3)= 288 though
[/h3]
Unless I'm horribly mistaken, you do whatever is in the parenthesis first then you do multiplying/division in the order that it comes in...my TI-84 said it is 288 btw.
It is not even a mind=blowing question
Yes but the 2 is still touching the parenthesis. When have you had an algebra problem that rewrites as 2(x)=2*x instead of 2(x)=2x? Having the 2 makes sense. And people not reading and just posting smilies and making dumb comments with the utmost confidence are what's wrong with this country, not the folks using their brain on either side with solid arguments.
I'll rewrite the equation for you
[h3]48÷2(9+3)=48 x .5 x (9+3)= 48 x .5 x 12=288
[/h3]
- 12,264
- 51
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
Answer is 2
- 12,264
- 51
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
Answer is 2
