48÷2(9+3) = ???

[do work son]

the original problem is 48÷2(9+3)

everything after the division sign is in the denominator. if you argue that the (9+3) is not in the denominator, then the problem would have been written (48÷2)(9+3)

 

[redsfan3]

Saw this on Twitter.  Some people are getting pretty angry.

 

[redsfan3]

Saw this on Twitter.  Some people are getting pretty angry.

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by hella handsome

Originally Posted by G to tha T

hmm I tried solving this using both division and fraction sign and I get this...

See, what I don't get is if us 2 supporters are so wrong how the hell did the calculator come to the answer of 2 at all?
The calculator would have had to be using the same logic as us.

They'd be programmed to follow PEMDAS as well, but this problem triggered that rule to be overwritten, leading me to believe that we are in fact, right.

2!!!!!!!

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by hella handsome

Originally Posted by G to tha T

hmm I tried solving this using both division and fraction sign and I get this...

See, what I don't get is if us 2 supporters are so wrong how the hell did the calculator come to the answer of 2 at all?
The calculator would have had to be using the same logic as us.

They'd be programmed to follow PEMDAS as well, but this problem triggered that rule to be overwritten, leading me to believe that we are in fact, right.

2!!!!!!!

 

[SplinterMatic319]

its 2

 

[andrew630]

2. PEMDAS

 

[SplinterMatic319]

its 2

 

[240Zestways]

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

This is what has been said OVER AND OVER again in this thread. The "2" believers somehow think that 2(9+3) is its own term even though it is equivalent to 2*(9+3). Multiplication is the LAST step in this equation because it is to the RIGHT of the division symbol and also located OUTSIDE OF THE PARENTHESIS, which means the first rule of PEMDAS does not apply to the 2.

 

[andrew630]

2. PEMDAS

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by do work son

the original problem is 48÷2(9+3)

everything after the division sign is in the denominator. if you argue that the (9+3) is not in the denominator, then the problem would have been written (48÷2)(9+3)

whats up with "2" people and "denominator" people constantly trying to restructure the problem by adding parentheses that are unproven

(4/(2)(9+3) ..... no unproven parentheses.... left to right

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by do work son

the original problem is 48÷2(9+3)

everything after the division sign is in the denominator. if you argue that the (9+3) is not in the denominator, then the problem would have been written (48÷2)(9+3)

whats up with "2" people and "denominator" people constantly trying to restructure the problem by adding parentheses that are unproven

(4/(2)(9+3) ..... no unproven parentheses.... left to right

 

[240Zestways]

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

This is what has been said OVER AND OVER again in this thread. The "2" believers somehow think that 2(9+3) is its own term even though it is equivalent to 2*(9+3). Multiplication is the LAST step in this equation because it is to the RIGHT of the division symbol and also located OUTSIDE OF THE PARENTHESIS, which means the first rule of PEMDAS does not apply to the 2.

 

[bananaboy2601]

I was talking to my neighbors dog a few minutes ago and we have come to the agreement that the answer is 288.

 

[bananaboy2601]

I was talking to my neighbors dog a few minutes ago and we have come to the agreement that the answer is 288.

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by imthekang

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by imthekang

if using P.E.M.D.A.S. the correct answer is 288.....

48/2(9+3)

(48/2)*12

24 x 12

=288

fixed


...

your creating parentheses out of nowhere on your second step....

...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by imthekang

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by imthekang

if using P.E.M.D.A.S. the correct answer is 288.....

48/2(9+3)

(48/2)*12

24 x 12

=288

fixed


...

your creating parentheses out of nowhere on your second step....

...

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by do work son

the original problem is 48÷2(9+3)

everything after the division sign is in the denominator. if you argue that the (9+3) is not in the denominator, then the problem would have been written (48÷2)(9+3)

whats up with "2" people and "denominator" people constantly trying to restructure the problem by adding parentheses that are unproven

(4/(2)(9+3) ..... no unproven parentheses.... left to right

whats with the 288 people changing 2(12) to 2* 1(12)?

the / indicates a fraction which would prove 288 right, but there isnt a "/" in the OG problem. there is a "÷" indicating that everything after it is in the denominator unless otherwise specified.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by do work son

the original problem is 48÷2(9+3)

everything after the division sign is in the denominator. if you argue that the (9+3) is not in the denominator, then the problem would have been written (48÷2)(9+3)

whats up with "2" people and "denominator" people constantly trying to restructure the problem by adding parentheses that are unproven

(4/(2)(9+3) ..... no unproven parentheses.... left to right

whats with the 288 people changing 2(12) to 2* 1(12)?

the / indicates a fraction which would prove 288 right, but there isnt a "/" in the OG problem. there is a "÷" indicating that everything after it is in the denominator unless otherwise specified.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by do work son

the original problem is 48÷2(9+3)

everything after the division sign is in the denominator. if you argue that the (9+3) is not in the denominator, then the problem would have been written (48÷2)(9+3)

whats up with "2" people and "denominator" people constantly trying to restructure the problem by adding parentheses that are unproven

(4/(2)(9+3) ..... no unproven parentheses.... left to right

whats with the 288 people changing 2(12) to 2* 1(12)?

the / indicates a fraction which would prove 288 right, but there isnt a "/" in the OG problem. there is a "÷" indicating that everything after it is in the denominator unless otherwise specified.

theyre the SAME thing, theres never "that" denominator, you only get "that" denominator when you restructure the problem

(4/(2)(9+3) ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... left to right

 

[cincoseisdos]

I just saw this thread

The fact that %#$@ stupid @+$ question is 54 pages long is driving me nuts.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by do work son

the original problem is 48÷2(9+3)

everything after the division sign is in the denominator. if you argue that the (9+3) is not in the denominator, then the problem would have been written (48÷2)(9+3)

whats up with "2" people and "denominator" people constantly trying to restructure the problem by adding parentheses that are unproven

(4/(2)(9+3) ..... no unproven parentheses.... left to right

whats with the 288 people changing 2(12) to 2* 1(12)?

the / indicates a fraction which would prove 288 right, but there isnt a "/" in the OG problem. there is a "÷" indicating that everything after it is in the denominator unless otherwise specified.

theyre the SAME thing, theres never "that" denominator, you only get "that" denominator when you restructure the problem

(4/(2)(9+3) ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... left to right

 

[cincoseisdos]

I just saw this thread

The fact that %#$@ stupid @+$ question is 54 pages long is driving me nuts.

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by CincoSeisDos

I just saw this thread

The fact that %#$@ stupid @+$ question is 54 pages long is driving me nuts.

Yet you just made it one post closer to 55 pages and my reply to you got it two steps closer to page 55.  Just admit it, you think the answer is 2.

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by CincoSeisDos

I just saw this thread

The fact that %#$@ stupid @+$ question is 54 pages long is driving me nuts.

Yet you just made it one post closer to 55 pages and my reply to you got it two steps closer to page 55.  Just admit it, you think the answer is 2.