48÷2(9+3) = ???

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

Wouldn't the 2nd set of parenthesis be implied since the 2 is next to the original set of parenthesis? For instance if we just had an equation of

2(9+3) =

The answer to that would be 24.

All we're doing is putting that in the denominator and putting 48 in the numerator, right?

I'm trying to get my mind around it--you guys are saying we're actually looking at (48÷2)(9+3) = ?
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.
 
Originally Posted by waystinthyme

notice that since the beginning of the thread...

people have converted from the 2 crowd to the 288 crowd, but NO ONE has converted from the 288 crowd to the 2 crowd.

strange, huh?

-waystinthyme
reposted from page 24...

-waystinthyme

  
 
Originally Posted by waystinthyme

notice that since the beginning of the thread...

people have converted from the 2 crowd to the 288 crowd, but NO ONE has converted from the 288 crowd to the 2 crowd.

strange, huh?

-waystinthyme
reposted from page 24...

-waystinthyme

  
 
Originally Posted by Russ tha G

No one ever writes 2 x (9+3). The x is redundant. It is known that 2(9+3) is multiplication.
48/2(12) is the same thing as (48(12))/2.


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))

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

No one ever writes 2 x (9+3). The x is redundant. It is known that 2(9+3) is multiplication.
48/2(12) is the same thing as (48(12))/2.


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?
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.
 
Originally Posted by Russ tha G

No one ever writes 2 x (9+3). The x is redundant. It is known that 2(9+3) is multiplication.
48/2(12) is the same thing as (48(12))/2.


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))

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

No one ever writes 2 x (9+3). The x is redundant. It is known that 2(9+3) is multiplication.
48/2(12) is the same thing as (48(12))/2.


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?
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.
 
why on earth is this going to reach 1000 posts?
laugh.gif
 
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
laugh.gif
 
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
laugh.gif
 
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
laugh.gif
I just posted the equation on my uncle's FB.  He's an engineer at NASA and graduated from MIT.
 
Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

No one ever writes 2 x (9+3). The x is redundant. It is known that 2(9+3) is multiplication.
48/2(12) is the same thing as (48(12))/2.


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?
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
 
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
laugh.gif
I just posted the equation on my uncle's FB.  He's an engineer at NASA and graduated from MIT.
 
Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

No one ever writes 2 x (9+3). The x is redundant. It is known that 2(9+3) is multiplication.
48/2(12) is the same thing as (48(12))/2.


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?
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
 
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
 
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
 
Originally Posted by Mark Antony

Originally Posted by E3LAL

Originally Posted by GRyPR33


46 pages!
sick.gif



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]

sick.gif
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. 

laugh.gif

I'll rewrite the equation for you
[h3]48÷2(9+3)=48 x .5 x (9+3)= 48 x .5 x 12=288
eek.gif
(should be common sense)
[/h3]
 
Originally Posted by Mark Antony

Originally Posted by E3LAL

Originally Posted by GRyPR33


46 pages!
sick.gif



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]

sick.gif
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. 

laugh.gif

I'll rewrite the equation for you
[h3]48÷2(9+3)=48 x .5 x (9+3)= 48 x .5 x 12=288
eek.gif
(should be common sense)
[/h3]
 
Back
Top Bottom