48÷2(9+3) = ???

[do work son]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

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 way the problem is originally written, it's safe to assume that 2(9+3) is in your denominator. if you want to claim there should be an extra set of parenthesis somewhere to make it more clear was to which problem the OG author intended, that's fine by me. but i stand by my claim, that the way it is originally written indicates that 2(9+3) is a singular term in the denominator.

now if you'll excuse me

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

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 way the problem is originally written, it's safe to assume that 2(9+3) is in your denominator. if you want to claim there should be an extra set of parenthesis somewhere to make it more clear was to which problem the OG author intended, that's fine by me. but i stand by my claim, that the way it is originally written indicates that 2(9+3) is a singular term in the denominator.

now if you'll excuse me

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son

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 way the problem is originally written, it's safe to assume that 2(9+3) is in your denominator. if you want to claim there should be an extra set of parenthesis somewhere to make it more clear was to which problem the OG author intended, that's fine by me. but i stand by my claim, that the way it is originally written indicates that 2(9+3) is a singular term in the denominator.

now if you'll excuse me

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

Obviously the author of the problem knows how to use parenthesis so if there would be another parenthesis needed which is REQUIRED to show it being one whole term that needs to be computed before anything I'd think they would put it there...

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by do work son

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 way the problem is originally written, it's safe to assume that 2(9+3) is in your denominator. if you want to claim there should be an extra set of parenthesis somewhere to make it more clear was to which problem the OG author intended, that's fine by me. but i stand by my claim, that the way it is originally written indicates that 2(9+3) is a singular term in the denominator.

now if you'll excuse me

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

Obviously the author of the problem knows how to use parenthesis so if there would be another parenthesis needed which is REQUIRED to show it being one whole term that needs to be computed before anything I'd think they would put it there...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

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.

Because you're using a calc that hasn't been programmed to followed the hierarchical system the right way.

Type the equation as is in any search engine, online math calculator, advanced level Texas Instruments calculator, Microsoft Excel, etcetc, and you will get 288.

Go ahead...


...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

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.

Because you're using a calc that hasn't been programmed to followed the hierarchical system the right way.

Type the equation as is in any search engine, online math calculator, advanced level Texas Instruments calculator, Microsoft Excel, etcetc, and you will get 288.

Go ahead...


...

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze


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.

Because you're using a calc that hasn't been programmed to followed the hierarchical system the right way.

Type the equation as is in any search engine, online math calculator, advanced level Texas Instruments calculator, Microsoft Excel, etcetc, and you will get 288.

Go ahead...


...

All that could be an error in programming though.
Why would the calculator come to a conclusion of 2 at all unless it was specifically programmed to do so??

Logically it makes no sense for that to happen unless 2 is the correct answer.

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze


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.

Because you're using a calc that hasn't been programmed to followed the hierarchical system the right way.

Type the equation as is in any search engine, online math calculator, advanced level Texas Instruments calculator, Microsoft Excel, etcetc, and you will get 288.

Go ahead...


...

All that could be an error in programming though.
Why would the calculator come to a conclusion of 2 at all unless it was specifically programmed to do so??

Logically it makes no sense for that to happen unless 2 is the correct answer.

 

[drunken cow]

How would you guys go about solving this problem?
1/3(x+x) = 18

 

[drunken cow]

How would you guys go about solving this problem?
1/3(x+x) = 18

 

[snakeyes17]

The calculator doesn't matter. As shown, multiple calculators can come to different answers.
It is up to the order of operations, and a calculator is not necessary to find the answer.

Originally Posted by Drunken Cow

How would you guys go about solving this problem?
1/3(x+x) = 18

Multiply each side by 3
(x+x) = 54
2x = 54
x = 27
(whoops, hit 1 instead of 2)

The (x+x) is not in the denominator. The denominator is not 3(x+x). If it was the problem would be 1/(3(x+x)).

48/2(9+3) = 288
Multiply each side by 2/48.
(9+3) = 12
9+3 = 12
12 = 12

 

[snakeyes17]

The calculator doesn't matter. As shown, multiple calculators can come to different answers.
It is up to the order of operations, and a calculator is not necessary to find the answer.

Originally Posted by Drunken Cow

How would you guys go about solving this problem?
1/3(x+x) = 18

Multiply each side by 3
(x+x) = 54
2x = 54
x = 27
(whoops, hit 1 instead of 2)

The (x+x) is not in the denominator. The denominator is not 3(x+x). If it was the problem would be 1/(3(x+x)).

48/2(9+3) = 288
Multiply each side by 2/48.
(9+3) = 12
9+3 = 12
12 = 12

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

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.

Because you're using a calc that hasn't been programmed to followed the hierarchical system the right way.

Type the equation as is in any search engine, online math calculator, advanced level Texas Instruments calculator, Microsoft Excel, etcetc, and you will get 288.

Go ahead...


...

All that could be an error in programming though.
Why would the calculator come to a conclusion of 2 at all unless it was specifically programmed to do so??

Logically it makes no sense for that to happen unless 2 is the correct answer.

TI series calculators that are recent dont make this mistake and those are basically the standard in college math.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

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.

Because you're using a calc that hasn't been programmed to followed the hierarchical system the right way.

Type the equation as is in any search engine, online math calculator, advanced level Texas Instruments calculator, Microsoft Excel, etcetc, and you will get 288.

Go ahead...


...

All that could be an error in programming though.
Why would the calculator come to a conclusion of 2 at all unless it was specifically programmed to do so??

Logically it makes no sense for that to happen unless 2 is the correct answer.

TI series calculators that are recent dont make this mistake and those are basically the standard in college math.

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

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.

Because you're using a calc that hasn't been programmed to followed the hierarchical system the right way.

Type the equation as is in any search engine, online math calculator, advanced level Texas Instruments calculator, Microsoft Excel, etcetc, and you will get 288.

Go ahead...


...

All that could be an error in programming though.
Why would the calculator come to a conclusion of 2 at all unless it was specifically programmed to do so??

Logically it makes no sense for that to happen unless 2 is the correct answer.

I am not disagreeing with you and/or refuting the fact that calc is coming up with an answer of 2. What I am saying is that it is doing so because it's not a "higher math" calculator.

Furthermore, because it's not a "higher math" calculator, it hasn't been programmed to follow the hierarchical system in the strictest sense, and this is what leads to problems.

Actually, in fact, what I should say is that it HAS been programmed to follow the hierarchical system in the strictest sense. And this is very problematic because in the PEMDAS and/or BODMAS system, M and D are on an equal playing field. Neither one has precedence and/or priority over the other. Older and lower mathimatical calculators don't recognize this fact, and that's why they'll produce 2 as an answer when you input the equation and the center of all this madness.


... 

 

[elcatfisho]

Originally Posted by Drunken Cow

How would you guys go about solving this problem?
1/3(x+x) = 18

2x = 54
x = 27

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

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.

Because you're using a calc that hasn't been programmed to followed the hierarchical system the right way.

Type the equation as is in any search engine, online math calculator, advanced level Texas Instruments calculator, Microsoft Excel, etcetc, and you will get 288.

Go ahead...


...

All that could be an error in programming though.
Why would the calculator come to a conclusion of 2 at all unless it was specifically programmed to do so??

Logically it makes no sense for that to happen unless 2 is the correct answer.

I am not disagreeing with you and/or refuting the fact that calc is coming up with an answer of 2. What I am saying is that it is doing so because it's not a "higher math" calculator.

Furthermore, because it's not a "higher math" calculator, it hasn't been programmed to follow the hierarchical system in the strictest sense, and this is what leads to problems.

Actually, in fact, what I should say is that it HAS been programmed to follow the hierarchical system in the strictest sense. And this is very problematic because in the PEMDAS and/or BODMAS system, M and D are on an equal playing field. Neither one has precedence and/or priority over the other. Older and lower mathimatical calculators don't recognize this fact, and that's why they'll produce 2 as an answer when you input the equation and the center of all this madness.


... 

 

[elcatfisho]

Originally Posted by Drunken Cow

How would you guys go about solving this problem?
1/3(x+x) = 18

2x = 54
x = 27

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by snakeyes17

The calculator doesn't matter. As shown, multiple calculators can come to different answers.
It is up to the order of operations, and a calculator is not necessary to find the answer.

The calculator ITSELF doesn't matter, but the way it was programmed does.
If it's coming to an answer of 2, it must be following a programmed rule solving 2(9+3) separately before moving on to the division.

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by snakeyes17

The calculator doesn't matter. As shown, multiple calculators can come to different answers.
It is up to the order of operations, and a calculator is not necessary to find the answer.

The calculator ITSELF doesn't matter, but the way it was programmed does.
If it's coming to an answer of 2, it must be following a programmed rule solving 2(9+3) separately before moving on to the division.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by ElCatfisho

Originally Posted by Drunken Cow

How would you guys go about solving this problem?
1/3(x+x) = 18

2x = 54
x = 27

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by ElCatfisho

Originally Posted by Drunken Cow

How would you guys go about solving this problem?
1/3(x+x) = 18

2x = 54
x = 27

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze


Because you're using a calc that hasn't been programmed to followed the hierarchical system the right way.

Type the equation as is in any search engine, online math calculator, advanced level Texas Instruments calculator, Microsoft Excel, etcetc, and you will get 288.

Go ahead...


...

All that could be an error in programming though.
Why would the calculator come to a conclusion of 2 at all unless it was specifically programmed to do so??

Logically it makes no sense for that to happen unless 2 is the correct answer.

Geez you're hard headed (no diss)...

I am not disagreeing with you and/or refuting the fact that calc is coming up with an answer of 2. What I am saying is that it is doing so because it's not a "higher math" calculator.

Furthermore, because it's not a "higher math" calculator, it hasn't been programmed to follow the hierarchical system in the strictest sense, and this is what leads to problems.

Actually, in fact, what I should say is that it HAS been programmed to follow the hierarchical system in the strictest sense. And this is very problematic because in the PEMDAS and/or BODMAS system, M and D are on an equal playing field. Neither one has precedence and/or priority over the other. Older and lower mathimatical calculators don't recognize this fact, and that's why they'll produce 2 as an answer when you input the equation and the center of all this madness.


... 

It's ok, I know you don't mean it that way

This is actually a fun discussion
The TI series calculator in the OP also came up with an answer of 2 though.
I would think any calculator knows to work left to right as well.
If it's following PEMDAS, and reading left to right, 2 must be the right answer

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze


Because you're using a calc that hasn't been programmed to followed the hierarchical system the right way.

Type the equation as is in any search engine, online math calculator, advanced level Texas Instruments calculator, Microsoft Excel, etcetc, and you will get 288.

Go ahead...


...

All that could be an error in programming though.
Why would the calculator come to a conclusion of 2 at all unless it was specifically programmed to do so??

Logically it makes no sense for that to happen unless 2 is the correct answer.

Geez you're hard headed (no diss)...

I am not disagreeing with you and/or refuting the fact that calc is coming up with an answer of 2. What I am saying is that it is doing so because it's not a "higher math" calculator.

Furthermore, because it's not a "higher math" calculator, it hasn't been programmed to follow the hierarchical system in the strictest sense, and this is what leads to problems.

Actually, in fact, what I should say is that it HAS been programmed to follow the hierarchical system in the strictest sense. And this is very problematic because in the PEMDAS and/or BODMAS system, M and D are on an equal playing field. Neither one has precedence and/or priority over the other. Older and lower mathimatical calculators don't recognize this fact, and that's why they'll produce 2 as an answer when you input the equation and the center of all this madness.


... 

It's ok, I know you don't mean it that way

This is actually a fun discussion
The TI series calculator in the OP also came up with an answer of 2 though.
I would think any calculator knows to work left to right as well.
If it's following PEMDAS, and reading left to right, 2 must be the right answer

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by GRyPR33

All that could be an error in programming though.
Why would the calculator come to a conclusion of 2 at all unless it was specifically programmed to do so??

Logically it makes no sense for that to happen unless 2 is the correct answer.

Geez you're hard headed (no diss)...

I am not disagreeing with you and/or refuting the fact that calc is coming up with an answer of 2. What I am saying is that it is doing so because it's not a "higher math" calculator.

Furthermore, because it's not a "higher math" calculator, it hasn't been programmed to follow the hierarchical system in the strictest sense, and this is what leads to problems.

Actually, in fact, what I should say is that it HAS been programmed to follow the hierarchical system in the strictest sense. And this is very problematic because in the PEMDAS and/or BODMAS system, M and D are on an equal playing field. Neither one has precedence and/or priority over the other. Older and lower mathimatical calculators don't recognize this fact, and that's why they'll produce 2 as an answer when you input the equation and the center of all this madness.


... 

It's ok, I know you don't mean it that way

This is actually a fun discussion
The TI series calculator in the OP also came up with an answer of 2 though.
I would think any calculator knows to work left to right as well.
If it's following PEMDAS, and reading left to right, 2 must be the right answer

THEY DONT EVEN MAKE TI-85S ANYMORE THEY ARE DISCONTINUED IN THE 90s. TI-86 WAS THE CALCULATOR AFTER THE TI-85 AND IS THE RIGHT WAY.