48÷2(9+3) = ???

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son


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.

Under that guise, 48÷2(9+3) is correct... then it is correctly written as 48÷2*(9+3) = 48÷2*12 = 24*12=288.

If the equation was written: 48÷(2(9+3)) = 48÷(2(12)) = 48÷24 = 2.

But as stated... that would be restructuring the problem.

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

Not at all. If it was meant to be in the denominator the problem would read 48÷(2(9+3)). As the problem reads, the ONLY thing in the denominator is the 2. 48 divided by 2. If the 2 touches the parentheses, it means multiplication. The problem would not originally be 48÷2*(9+3), or 48÷2 x (9+3), because it is UNDERSTOOD that the parentheses indicate multiplication of the number outside. But you can't just do that multiplication, because the division occurs before it going left to right.

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son


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.

Under that guise, 48÷2(9+3) is correct... then it is correctly written as 48÷2*(9+3) = 48÷2*12 = 24*12=288.

If the equation was written: 48÷(2(9+3)) = 48÷(2(12)) = 48÷24 = 2.

But as stated... that would be restructuring the problem.

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

If the term (9+3) was part of the denominator it would be written (2(9+3)).  Now who is completely changing the Problem?

CA>NY... 288>2.

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son


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.

Under that guise, 48÷2(9+3) is correct... then it is correctly written as 48÷2*(9+3) = 48÷2*12 = 24*12=288.

If the equation was written: 48÷(2(9+3)) = 48÷(2(12)) = 48÷24 = 2.

But as stated... that would be restructuring the problem.

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

If the term (9+3) was part of the denominator it would be written (2(9+3)).  Now who is completely changing the Problem?

CA>NY... 288>2.

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by hella handsome

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!!!!!!!

anybody??

Those calculators actually haven't been programmed to follow the hierarchical system of Pemdas.

A Texas intruments graphing calculator (T.I eighty something)--which is like the standard calculator used in higher mathematics--gives you an answer of 288 because they have all been programmed to follow the proper system of operation.


...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by hella handsome

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!!!!!!!

anybody??

Those calculators actually haven't been programmed to follow the hierarchical system of Pemdas.

A Texas intruments graphing calculator (T.I eighty something)--which is like the standard calculator used in higher mathematics--gives you an answer of 288 because they have all been programmed to follow the proper system of operation.


...

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Under that guise, 48÷2(9+3) is correct... then it is correctly written as 48÷2*(9+3) = 48÷2*12 = 24*12=288.

If the equation was written: 48÷(2(9+3)) = 48÷(2(12)) = 48÷24 = 2.

But as stated... that would be restructuring the problem.

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

You do realize that when two terms are touching each other it just means MULTIPLICATION nothing else. You signify things that cant be removed together with parenthesis and the terms have to be INSIDE of them. When terms are touching with no parenthesis covering them it means they are being multiplied NOTHING MORE.

this is the correct way to write the problem

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Under that guise, 48÷2(9+3) is correct... then it is correctly written as 48÷2*(9+3) = 48÷2*12 = 24*12=288.

If the equation was written: 48÷(2(9+3)) = 48÷(2(12)) = 48÷24 = 2.

But as stated... that would be restructuring the problem.

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

You do realize that when two terms are touching each other it just means MULTIPLICATION nothing else. You signify things that cant be removed together with parenthesis and the terms have to be INSIDE of them. When terms are touching with no parenthesis covering them it means they are being multiplied NOTHING MORE.

this is the correct way to write the problem

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

You do realize that when two terms are touching each other it just means MULTIPLICATION nothing else. You signify things that cant be removed together with parenthesis and the terms have to be INSIDE of them. When terms are touching with no parenthesis covering them it means they are being multiplied NOTHING MORE.

this is the correct way to write the problem

no its not

in order to get that setup, you have to restructure the problem to read:

48/(2(9+3)) ... adding in unproven parentheses

heres how it can look with parentheses that dont need proving and without restructuring:

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

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

You do realize that when two terms are touching each other it just means MULTIPLICATION nothing else. You signify things that cant be removed together with parenthesis and the terms have to be INSIDE of them. When terms are touching with no parenthesis covering them it means they are being multiplied NOTHING MORE.

this is the correct way to write the problem

no its not

in order to get that setup, you have to restructure the problem to read:

48/(2(9+3)) ... adding in unproven parentheses

heres how it can look with parentheses that dont need proving and without restructuring:

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

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

You do realize that when two terms are touching each other it just means MULTIPLICATION nothing else. You signify things that cant be removed together with parenthesis and the terms have to be INSIDE of them. When terms are touching with no parenthesis covering them it means they are being multiplied NOTHING MORE.

this is the correct way to write the problem

That would be 48÷(2(9+3)).  Which is not the question.

Edit: point of emphasis.

 

[mo greene]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

You do realize that when two terms are touching each other it just means MULTIPLICATION nothing else. You signify things that cant be removed together with parenthesis and the terms have to be INSIDE of them. When terms are touching with no parenthesis covering them it means they are being multiplied NOTHING MORE.

this is the correct way to write the problem

i can't tell if you're trolling or not

 

[mo greene]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

You do realize that when two terms are touching each other it just means MULTIPLICATION nothing else. You signify things that cant be removed together with parenthesis and the terms have to be INSIDE of them. When terms are touching with no parenthesis covering them it means they are being multiplied NOTHING MORE.

this is the correct way to write the problem

i can't tell if you're trolling or not

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

You do realize that when two terms are touching each other it just means MULTIPLICATION nothing else. You signify things that cant be removed together with parenthesis and the terms have to be INSIDE of them. When terms are touching with no parenthesis covering them it means they are being multiplied NOTHING MORE.

this is the correct way to write the problem

That would be 48÷(2(9+3)).  Which is not the question.

Edit: point of emphasis.

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

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!!!!!!!

anybody??

Those calculators actually haven't been programmed to follow the hierarchical system of Pemdas.

A Texas intruments graphing calculator (T.I eighty something)--which is like the standard calculator used in higher mathematics--gives you an answer of 288 because they have all been programmed to follow the proper system of operation.


...

If not hierarchical, then they'd do the problem from left to right normally.
That's not the order the calculator performed the operations in.
It deliberately and logically did 2(9+3) as a whole before moving on to the division.

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

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!!!!!!!

anybody??

Those calculators actually haven't been programmed to follow the hierarchical system of Pemdas.

A Texas intruments graphing calculator (T.I eighty something)--which is like the standard calculator used in higher mathematics--gives you an answer of 288 because they have all been programmed to follow the proper system of operation.


...

If not hierarchical, then they'd do the problem from left to right normally.
That's not the order the calculator performed the operations in.
It deliberately and logically did 2(9+3) as a whole before moving on to the division.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Under that guise, 48÷2(9+3) is correct... then it is correctly written as 48÷2*(9+3) = 48÷2*12 = 24*12=288.

If the equation was written: 48÷(2(9+3)) = 48÷(2(12)) = 48÷24 = 2.

But as stated... that would be restructuring the problem.

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

If the term (9+3) was part of the denominator it would be written (2(9+3)).  Now who is completely changing the Problem?

CA>NY... 288>2.

if the term 48/2 was meant to be the coefficient the problem would read (48÷2)(9+3) yielding you this:

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Under that guise, 48÷2(9+3) is correct... then it is correctly written as 48÷2*(9+3) = 48÷2*12 = 24*12=288.

If the equation was written: 48÷(2(9+3)) = 48÷(2(12)) = 48÷24 = 2.

But as stated... that would be restructuring the problem.

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

If the term (9+3) was part of the denominator it would be written (2(9+3)).  Now who is completely changing the Problem?

CA>NY... 288>2.

if the term 48/2 was meant to be the coefficient the problem would read (48÷2)(9+3) yielding you this:

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

If the term (9+3) was part of the denominator it would be written (2(9+3)).  Now who is completely changing the Problem?

CA>NY... 288>2.

if the term 48/2 was meant to be the coefficient the problem would read (48÷2)(9+3) yielding you this:

and if it was meant to be 48/(2(9+3)) it would have been written 48/(2(9+3)).

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

If the term (9+3) was part of the denominator it would be written (2(9+3)).  Now who is completely changing the Problem?

CA>NY... 288>2.

if the term 48/2 was meant to be the coefficient the problem would read (48÷2)(9+3) yielding you this:

and if it was meant to be 48/(2(9+3)) it would have been written 48/(2(9+3)).

 

[the yes guy]

Seriously, it's like he's trying to prove us right.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

If the term (9+3) was part of the denominator it would be written (2(9+3)).  Now who is completely changing the Problem?

CA>NY... 288>2.

if the term 48/2 was meant to be the coefficient the problem would read (48÷2)(9+3) yielding you this:

once again youre adding parentheses that arent proven

youre adding things to the problem that arent proven to be there... just like when assume that 2(9+3) is a single term, its an assumption thats not proven

(4/(2)(9+3)... nothing unproven has been added ... no assumptions are made ... when no assumptions are made, you go left tor right

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

If the term (9+3) was part of the denominator it would be written (2(9+3)).  Now who is completely changing the Problem?

CA>NY... 288>2.

if the term 48/2 was meant to be the coefficient the problem would read (48÷2)(9+3) yielding you this:

once again youre adding parentheses that arent proven

youre adding things to the problem that arent proven to be there... just like when assume that 2(9+3) is a single term, its an assumption thats not proven

(4/(2)(9+3)... nothing unproven has been added ... no assumptions are made ... when no assumptions are made, you go left tor right

 

[the yes guy]

Seriously, it's like he's trying to prove us right.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

If the term (9+3) was part of the denominator it would be written (2(9+3)).  Now who is completely changing the Problem?

CA>NY... 288>2.

if the term 48/2 was meant to be the coefficient the problem would read (48÷2)(9+3) yielding you this:

Order for operation gives you what you  just posted no need to restructure the problem thats what it ends up being once you get to working it

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son

you just restructured the problem by separating the term 2(9+3) when it should not be separated. by doing that you removed (9+3) from the denominator, completely changing the problem.

If the term (9+3) was part of the denominator it would be written (2(9+3)).  Now who is completely changing the Problem?

CA>NY... 288>2.

if the term 48/2 was meant to be the coefficient the problem would read (48÷2)(9+3) yielding you this:

Order for operation gives you what you  just posted no need to restructure the problem thats what it ends up being once you get to working it