48÷2(9+3) = ???

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

2 people say: 2(9+3) is one term

288 people say: 2(9+3) is NOT one term

neither side has proven that the opposite is false

One term by juxtaposition. The 2 is juxtaposed with the parentheses. This was proven PAGES ago.

If this is the only thing being argued now, then we'll wait for Monday. But if not, then the 2 methods above definitely work, and prove that the 2s have won.

(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)


its not a RULE, therefore nothing has been proven false

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by Bachelor frog

You need to put parentheses around your 1/2 since it's already understood to be .5. Once you do that, you simply multiply (1/2)*(10), and yeah, you'll get 5.

No you don't need to put anything. There is order of opreations :

1. Calculations must be done from left to right.

4. Multiply and divide in the order the operations occur.

http://math.about.com/library/weekly/aa040502a.htm

So first you do the 1:2 , then you multiply

No, because you started with the .5 you have to put parentheses there if you change the form of the number so that it can still be understood as a "half." It's already understood as one number, it can't just split off.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by Bachelor frog

You need to put parentheses around your 1/2 since it's already understood to be .5. Once you do that, you simply multiply (1/2)*(10), and yeah, you'll get 5.

No you don't need to put anything. There is order of opreations :

1. Calculations must be done from left to right.

4. Multiply and divide in the order the operations occur.

http://math.about.com/library/weekly/aa040502a.htm

So first you do the 1:2 , then you multiply

No, because you started with the .5 you have to put parentheses there if you change the form of the number so that it can still be understood as a "half." It's already understood as one number, it can't just split off.

 

[thehealthinspector]

maybe its late and i need some sleep but this juxtaposition thing is a bunch of $*@+@+%@

all i see is a made-up rule "juxtaposition" for multiplication but no "juxtaposition" rule for division because its impossible to write it that way

that cant be possible Logically, multiplication and division have to play within the same rules just like addition and subtraction do

 

[thehealthinspector]

maybe its late and i need some sleep but this juxtaposition thing is a bunch of $*@+@+%@

all i see is a made-up rule "juxtaposition" for multiplication but no "juxtaposition" rule for division because its impossible to write it that way

that cant be possible Logically, multiplication and division have to play within the same rules just like addition and subtraction do

 

[bachelor frog]

Oh ... ok , but even if you admit that [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]1÷2 * (8+2) = 5  is correct, you still saying that 48÷2(9+3) does nat equal 288 ? 

 it is basicly the same thing

No, because you started with the .5 you have to put parentheses there if you change the form of the number so that it can still be understood as a "half." It's already understood as one number, it can't just split off. 

Ok You're in Denial 

 , but i hope others will get it. It really is the right answer ... don't be fooled by my low post count 

 

[bachelor frog]

Oh ... ok , but even if you admit that [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]1÷2 * (8+2) = 5  is correct, you still saying that 48÷2(9+3) does nat equal 288 ? 

 it is basicly the same thing

No, because you started with the .5 you have to put parentheses there if you change the form of the number so that it can still be understood as a "half." It's already understood as one number, it can't just split off. 

Ok You're in Denial 

 , but i hope others will get it. It really is the right answer ... don't be fooled by my low post count 

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

2 people say: 2(9+3) is one term

288 people say: 2(9+3) is NOT one term

neither side has proven that the opposite is false

One term by juxtaposition. The 2 is juxtaposed with the parentheses. This was proven PAGES ago.

If this is the only thing being argued now, then we'll wait for Monday. But if not, then the 2 methods above definitely work, and prove that the 2s have won.

(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)

its not a RULE, therefore nothing has been proven false


It is understood as a rule throughout the math community. In your math class, it would be considered as such.

Basically, if this question were on an ACT test, and you answered 288, you'd get it wrong. Even if it's not "written in stone," the math community recognizes it as one term by juxtaposition. So go ahead and think it's 288, but I hope you have extra credit in your math classes. I've fulfilled my math credit in college by knocking out Calculus first semester, so I don't really have to worry about effing this up like those 288s that might still be doing math in school

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

2 people say: 2(9+3) is one term

288 people say: 2(9+3) is NOT one term

neither side has proven that the opposite is false

One term by juxtaposition. The 2 is juxtaposed with the parentheses. This was proven PAGES ago.

If this is the only thing being argued now, then we'll wait for Monday. But if not, then the 2 methods above definitely work, and prove that the 2s have won.

(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)

its not a RULE, therefore nothing has been proven false


It is understood as a rule throughout the math community. In your math class, it would be considered as such.

Basically, if this question were on an ACT test, and you answered 288, you'd get it wrong. Even if it's not "written in stone," the math community recognizes it as one term by juxtaposition. So go ahead and think it's 288, but I hope you have extra credit in your math classes. I've fulfilled my math credit in college by knocking out Calculus first semester, so I don't really have to worry about effing this up like those 288s that might still be doing math in school

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by Bachelor frog

Oh ... ok , but even if you admit that [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]1÷2 * (8+2) = 5  is correct, you still saying that 48÷2(9+3) does nat equal 288 ? 

 it is basicly the same thing

No, it's not the same thing at all, because the question is NOT 24(9+3), it is 48÷2(9+3). They are two different problems entirely, as proved above. Good day to you, gentlemen.

Edit: LMAO @ saying I'm in denial when you can't refute my proof. If you can't back up your argument, don't go to personal attacks, that only shows your weakness

 

[holdenmichael]

except: exponentials before multiplication

1st = exponential solved first, 2nd = left to right, pemdas - theres no guessing here because of rules


You're right, I missed that.

2 people say: 2(9+3) is one term

288 people say: 2(9+3) is NOT one term

neither side has proven that the opposite is false


From the website I linked to:

And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!


Once again, it appears that you are correct.

Unless we can prove that juxtaposition to parentheses does or does not take priority over "regular" division or multiplication by rule, you're right, there is no correct answer.

If "2(12)" does not take priority and is merely another way of writing "2•12," then the answer is 288.

If "2(12)" does take priority over "48•2," then the answer is 8.

Now I'm dying to know what math professors have to say. For those of you that have professors to ask and get a reply that states juxtaposition to parentheses take priority, please ask for a reference. If they just say, "that's what I was taught," we've done nothing to move closer to a resolution.



bruce negro, you're doing too much reaching and assuming (on top of just being plain incorrect about "÷" being used as a symbol for fraction) to reach your conclusion in the second part of what you keep re-posting.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by Bachelor frog

Oh ... ok , but even if you admit that [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]1÷2 * (8+2) = 5  is correct, you still saying that 48÷2(9+3) does nat equal 288 ? 

 it is basicly the same thing

No, it's not the same thing at all, because the question is NOT 24(9+3), it is 48÷2(9+3). They are two different problems entirely, as proved above. Good day to you, gentlemen.

Edit: LMAO @ saying I'm in denial when you can't refute my proof. If you can't back up your argument, don't go to personal attacks, that only shows your weakness

 

[holdenmichael]

except: exponentials before multiplication

1st = exponential solved first, 2nd = left to right, pemdas - theres no guessing here because of rules


You're right, I missed that.

2 people say: 2(9+3) is one term

288 people say: 2(9+3) is NOT one term

neither side has proven that the opposite is false


From the website I linked to:

And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!


Once again, it appears that you are correct.

Unless we can prove that juxtaposition to parentheses does or does not take priority over "regular" division or multiplication by rule, you're right, there is no correct answer.

If "2(12)" does not take priority and is merely another way of writing "2•12," then the answer is 288.

If "2(12)" does take priority over "48•2," then the answer is 8.

Now I'm dying to know what math professors have to say. For those of you that have professors to ask and get a reply that states juxtaposition to parentheses take priority, please ask for a reference. If they just say, "that's what I was taught," we've done nothing to move closer to a resolution.



bruce negro, you're doing too much reaching and assuming (on top of just being plain incorrect about "÷" being used as a symbol for fraction) to reach your conclusion in the second part of what you keep re-posting.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by holdenmichael

except: exponentials before multiplication

1st = exponential solved first, 2nd = left to right, pemdas - theres no guessing here because of rules

You're right, I missed that.

2 people say: 2(9+3) is one term

288 people say: 2(9+3) is NOT one term

neither side has proven that the opposite is false


From the website I linked to:

And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!


Once again, it appears that you are correct.

Unless we can prove that juxtaposition to parentheses does or does not take priority over "regular" division or multiplication by rule, you're right, there is no correct answer.

If "2(12)" does not take priority and is merely another way of writing "2•12," then the answer is 288.

If "2(12)" does take priority over "48•2," then the answer is 8.

Now I'm dying to know what math professors have to say. For those of you that have professors to ask and get a reply that states juxtaposition to parentheses take priority, please ask for a reference. If they just say, "that's what I was taught," we've done nothing to move closer to a resolution.



bruce negro, you're doing too much reaching and assuming (on top of just being plain incorrect about "÷" being used as a symbol for fraction) to reach your conclusion in the second part of what you keep re-posting.
Where am I reaching? I gave solid proof. You're the one who is trying to be entirely too philosophical about that. Talk to a math teacher and you will hear the same thing. It would actually be quicker for you to talk to a math professor or something, since you really don't want to believe me. Edit: rereading that second part of what I keep reposting, I also said that there would need to be parentheses around the 48 and the 2 in order for the answer to be equal to 288. I don't see how I'm reaching and assuming at all.

Also, it is very true that technically there is no answer because juxtaposition isn't an official rule. However, like I said, the math community views it as such. So if you want to think that juxtaposition isn't right, and then get your answers wrong in your respective math classes, then go ahead.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by holdenmichael

except: exponentials before multiplication

1st = exponential solved first, 2nd = left to right, pemdas - theres no guessing here because of rules

You're right, I missed that.

2 people say: 2(9+3) is one term

288 people say: 2(9+3) is NOT one term

neither side has proven that the opposite is false


From the website I linked to:

And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!


Once again, it appears that you are correct.

Unless we can prove that juxtaposition to parentheses does or does not take priority over "regular" division or multiplication by rule, you're right, there is no correct answer.

If "2(12)" does not take priority and is merely another way of writing "2•12," then the answer is 288.

If "2(12)" does take priority over "48•2," then the answer is 8.

Now I'm dying to know what math professors have to say. For those of you that have professors to ask and get a reply that states juxtaposition to parentheses take priority, please ask for a reference. If they just say, "that's what I was taught," we've done nothing to move closer to a resolution.



bruce negro, you're doing too much reaching and assuming (on top of just being plain incorrect about "÷" being used as a symbol for fraction) to reach your conclusion in the second part of what you keep re-posting.
Where am I reaching? I gave solid proof. You're the one who is trying to be entirely too philosophical about that. Talk to a math teacher and you will hear the same thing. It would actually be quicker for you to talk to a math professor or something, since you really don't want to believe me. Edit: rereading that second part of what I keep reposting, I also said that there would need to be parentheses around the 48 and the 2 in order for the answer to be equal to 288. I don't see how I'm reaching and assuming at all.

Also, it is very true that technically there is no answer because juxtaposition isn't an official rule. However, like I said, the math community views it as such. So if you want to think that juxtaposition isn't right, and then get your answers wrong in your respective math classes, then go ahead.

 

[thehealthinspector]

im going to sleep as long as we agree that juxtaposition isnt a rule

on top of that, do people even understand why neither division or multiplication comes first in pemdas?  its because they operate within the same logical rules just like addition vs subtraction

if theres no division juxtaposition rule, there cant be a multplication juxtaposition rule

 

[thehealthinspector]

im going to sleep as long as we agree that juxtaposition isnt a rule

on top of that, do people even understand why neither division or multiplication comes first in pemdas?  its because they operate within the same logical rules just like addition vs subtraction

if theres no division juxtaposition rule, there cant be a multplication juxtaposition rule

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

im going to sleep as long as we agree that juxtaposition isnt a rule

on top of that, do people even understand why neither division or multiplication comes first in pemdas?  its because they operate within the same logical rules just like addition vs subtraction

if theres no division juxtaposition rule, there cant be a multplication juxtaposition rule

It's not a multiplication juxtaposition rule, it's a parenthetical juxtaposition rule.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

im going to sleep as long as we agree that juxtaposition isnt a rule

on top of that, do people even understand why neither division or multiplication comes first in pemdas?  its because they operate within the same logical rules just like addition vs subtraction

if theres no division juxtaposition rule, there cant be a multplication juxtaposition rule

It's not a multiplication juxtaposition rule, it's a parenthetical juxtaposition rule.

 

[bachelor frog]

No, it's not the same thing at all, because the question is NOT 24(9+3), it is 48÷2(9+3). They are two different problems entirely, as proved above. Good day to you, gentlemen.

Edit: LMAO @ saying I'm in denial when you can't refute my proof. If you can't back up your argument, don't go to personal attacks, that only shows your weakness 

Sorry didn't mean to offend you. But I can't see how you can disagree , I just posted link explaining order of operations:

1. first you do (9+3)

2. Calculations in brackets (parenthesis) are done first. When you have more than one set of brackets, do the inner brackets first.

2. so you got 48÷2*12

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

4. Multiply and divide in the order the operations occur.

[/font]


thus first you divide and get : 24 * 12 , then you multiply... 

 

[bachelor frog]

No, it's not the same thing at all, because the question is NOT 24(9+3), it is 48÷2(9+3). They are two different problems entirely, as proved above. Good day to you, gentlemen.

Edit: LMAO @ saying I'm in denial when you can't refute my proof. If you can't back up your argument, don't go to personal attacks, that only shows your weakness 

Sorry didn't mean to offend you. But I can't see how you can disagree , I just posted link explaining order of operations:

1. first you do (9+3)

2. Calculations in brackets (parenthesis) are done first. When you have more than one set of brackets, do the inner brackets first.

2. so you got 48÷2*12

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

4. Multiply and divide in the order the operations occur.

[/font]


thus first you divide and get : 24 * 12 , then you multiply... 

 

[holdenmichael]

Where am I reaching?


Reaching, in that you're making equating "÷" with "/" and making "2(9+3)" the whole denominator of this expression even though it would require brackets surround it in order...to...be...one...term...

on top of that, do people even understand why neither division or multiplication comes first in pemdas? its because they operate within the same logical rules just like addition vs subtraction

if theres no division juxtaposition rule, there cant be a multplication juxtaposition rule


I finally get it and it does seem logical.

Given that all we can find for order of operations is:

P / E / MD / AS

in which both "MD" and "AS," respectively, are interchangeable, we can only assume that there's no "juxtaposition" rule. "2(9+3)" does not take priority over "48÷2."


Damn, the internet did win...


...and I lost.

 

[holdenmichael]

Where am I reaching?


Reaching, in that you're making equating "÷" with "/" and making "2(9+3)" the whole denominator of this expression even though it would require brackets surround it in order...to...be...one...term...

on top of that, do people even understand why neither division or multiplication comes first in pemdas? its because they operate within the same logical rules just like addition vs subtraction

if theres no division juxtaposition rule, there cant be a multplication juxtaposition rule


I finally get it and it does seem logical.

Given that all we can find for order of operations is:

P / E / MD / AS

in which both "MD" and "AS," respectively, are interchangeable, we can only assume that there's no "juxtaposition" rule. "2(9+3)" does not take priority over "48÷2."


Damn, the internet did win...


...and I lost.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

im going to sleep as long as we agree that juxtaposition isnt a rule

on top of that, do people even understand why neither division or multiplication comes first in pemdas?  its because they operate within the same logical rules just like addition vs subtraction

if theres no division juxtaposition rule, there cant be a multplication juxtaposition rule

It's not a multiplication juxtaposition rule, it's a parenthetical juxtaposition rule.

no its not, parenthetical refers to whats inside the parentheses, 2(9+3) = (2)(9+3) which still means multiplication

it still doesnt change the fact that theres no co-rule for division

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

im going to sleep as long as we agree that juxtaposition isnt a rule

on top of that, do people even understand why neither division or multiplication comes first in pemdas?  its because they operate within the same logical rules just like addition vs subtraction

if theres no division juxtaposition rule, there cant be a multplication juxtaposition rule

It's not a multiplication juxtaposition rule, it's a parenthetical juxtaposition rule.

no its not, parenthetical refers to whats inside the parentheses, 2(9+3) = (2)(9+3) which still means multiplication

it still doesnt change the fact that theres no co-rule for division