- 4,363
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
If it was askign for that the proper way to write it would be 48 ÷ (2 ( 9 + 3) ).
48÷2(9+3) = ???
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by n1k3b4ller,
- Start date
- 4,363
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
If it was askign for that the proper way to write it would be 48 ÷ (2 ( 9 + 3) ).
People are confused in that you must break down the parenthesis as much as possible before anything. But by using the 2 to multiply the (9+3), you're breaking the rule of order. In this problem division comes before multiplication, you're no longer using the parenthesis as the main law now.
People are confused in that you must break down the parenthesis as much as possible before anything. But by using the 2 to multiply the (9+3), you're breaking the rule of order. In this problem division comes before multiplication, you're no longer using the parenthesis as the main law now.
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
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) = ?
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) = ?
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
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) = ?
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) = ?
- 909
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2006
people really believe in their hearts that the paren's just remain for the entire problem? what the hell? lol ...
even if i wanted to entertain your thought, it would be the same thing ... there is nothing to do INSIDE the paren's once you add ...
this is something that people faarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr smarter than anyone on here decided a looooooooooooong time ago ... the answer is 288, there is no other way to "look at it" ... do people realize that? this isn't a methodological or interpretation question ... it is what it is ...
even if i wanted to entertain your thought, it would be the same thing ... there is nothing to do INSIDE the paren's once you add ...
this is something that people faarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr smarter than anyone on here decided a looooooooooooong time ago ... the answer is 288, there is no other way to "look at it" ... do people realize that? this isn't a methodological or interpretation question ... it is what it is ...
- 909
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2006
people really believe in their hearts that the paren's just remain for the entire problem? what the hell? lol ...
even if i wanted to entertain your thought, it would be the same thing ... there is nothing to do INSIDE the paren's once you add ...
this is something that people faarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr smarter than anyone on here decided a looooooooooooong time ago ... the answer is 288, there is no other way to "look at it" ... do people realize that? this isn't a methodological or interpretation question ... it is what it is ...
even if i wanted to entertain your thought, it would be the same thing ... there is nothing to do INSIDE the paren's once you add ...
this is something that people faarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr smarter than anyone on here decided a looooooooooooong time ago ... the answer is 288, there is no other way to "look at it" ... do people realize that? this isn't a methodological or interpretation question ... it is what it is ...
- 21,949
- 1,378
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2003
Isn't it parenthesis first?
So by that formula you're breaking down the parenthesis until it is 9+3 = 12, and you still left with:
48 / 2(12).....you STILL have to get rid of the parenthesis and you're left with 48/24 = 2.
- 21,949
- 1,378
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2003
Isn't it parenthesis first?
So by that formula you're breaking down the parenthesis until it is 9+3 = 12, and you still left with:
48 / 2(12).....you STILL have to get rid of the parenthesis and you're left with 48/24 = 2.
- 4,363
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
Yes the equation i wrote gave you 2 but the equation i wrote is NOT the equation that we are talking about. That equation is the ONLY way you can get 2 out of the equation in this thread. The only way to get 2 as an answer is by adding parenthesis which are not there.
- 1,871
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
Correct. Those parentheses are used to say that the action inside, the addition of nine and three, is necessary to be completed first.
But once that occurs, you just use the order of operations. 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. There are no parentheses to indicate that the whole denominator is 2(12). Just the 2 is in the denominator.
There really is no reason for the 2 people to think 288 is wrong. It is right. And the only way 2 is right is through juxtaposition or whatever, which is NOT a rule.
This problem is use to demonstrate the order of operations. If you learned this in algebra, there is no juxtaposition rule, just the order of operations.
See, you are right that 2(9+3) is 24, but you can't just do that order of operators. The 48 comes before it in the form of division with the 2 that follows. Not the 2(9+3) because it is not all in parentheses. It is 48 divided by 2. Then the answer to that, 24, times what is within the parentheses, 12. And you would get 288.
- 1,871
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
Correct. Those parentheses are used to say that the action inside, the addition of nine and three, is necessary to be completed first.
But once that occurs, you just use the order of operations. 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. There are no parentheses to indicate that the whole denominator is 2(12). Just the 2 is in the denominator.
There really is no reason for the 2 people to think 288 is wrong. It is right. And the only way 2 is right is through juxtaposition or whatever, which is NOT a rule.
This problem is use to demonstrate the order of operations. If you learned this in algebra, there is no juxtaposition rule, just the order of operations.
See, you are right that 2(9+3) is 24, but you can't just do that order of operators. The 48 comes before it in the form of division with the 2 that follows. Not the 2(9+3) because it is not all in parentheses. It is 48 divided by 2. Then the answer to that, 24, times what is within the parentheses, 12. And you would get 288.
- 4,363
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
Yes the equation i wrote gave you 2 but the equation i wrote is NOT the equation that we are talking about. That equation is the ONLY way you can get 2 out of the equation in this thread. The only way to get 2 as an answer is by adding parenthesis which are not there.
- 22
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2011
48
If you got fraction like this 2(9+3) , you got to write it like that : 48: [2(9+3)]
48 9+3 48 x (9+3)
But if you got this 48 : 2 (9+3), the fraction will look like this: 2 x 1 , and this is 2
- 22
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2011
48
If you got fraction like this 2(9+3) , you got to write it like that : 48: [2(9+3)]
48 9+3 48 x (9+3)
But if you got this 48 : 2 (9+3), the fraction will look like this: 2 x 1 , and this is 2
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
- 759
- 16
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
It's 288.
edit:
Mathematical Proof:
48/2(9+3) = 48/2(9+3) Reflexive Property
48/2(12) Theorem of 2nd Grade Math
48/2=24*12 Well duhhh Property
24*12=288 Multiplication Property
edit:
Mathematical Proof:
48/2(9+3) = 48/2(9+3) Reflexive Property
48/2(12) Theorem of 2nd Grade Math
48/2=24*12 Well duhhh Property
24*12=288 Multiplication Property
- 759
- 16
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
It's 288.
edit:
Mathematical Proof:
48/2(9+3) = 48/2(9+3) Reflexive Property
48/2(12) Theorem of 2nd Grade Math
48/2=24*12 Well duhhh Property
24*12=288 Multiplication Property
edit:
Mathematical Proof:
48/2(9+3) = 48/2(9+3) Reflexive Property
48/2(12) Theorem of 2nd Grade Math
48/2=24*12 Well duhhh Property
24*12=288 Multiplication Property
- 4,363
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
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)
- 4,363
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
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)
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
Damn it. I think I was just converted. Now, I feel stupid.
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.
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
Damn it. I think I was just converted. Now, I feel stupid.