This was on nasioc and some other forums but the answer is 2. Even though some people think its 288. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=488334 http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/48÷293 http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293
That's not what was written. Google fail as well. Implicit multiplication != implicit parenthesis. That's as silly as changing "53+2x" to "(53+2) * x". Just because the operator is implied doesn't mean the order of operations is turned on its head. lulz, changing my answer... It SHOULD be 288. Google actually makes sense when you consider division and multiplication are equivalent. My previous example sucks because multiplication takes precedence over addition, but it DOES NOT take precedence over multiplication. The "M" and "D" in PEMDAS appear in no particular order. They're on the same playing ground. x % y(z) = x % y * (z) = x % y * z = (x % y) * z The initial idea that x(y) is no different than x * (y) still applies, now I just have the correct conclusion.
Surly should be correct. Division does not take precedence over multiplication. How man people here have experience beyond Algebra II? I'd like to see a show of hands.... Besides, TI-85/86's are antiquated technology.
My answer remains the same, but my reasoning is different. The order of operations should place the division potion first, but I believe it is general convention in writing (and thus solving) problems to perform multiplication on grouped numbers/variables first. Raises hand for math beyond Algebra II.
My parents paid about $40k for my highschool education, so I'll make Sure to call them tomorrow while I drive my dump truck and tell them I got this math problem correct! My math skills include a B+ in college calc 2 and another half semester of what ever is after that haha.
Remind me never to discuss math with subaru people, multiplying and dividing are on the same level thus they are executed left to right, 48/2*(9+3)=48/2*12=24*12=288. Ask matlab, mathmatica, c++, my ti-89, and a bunch of other number crunchers.
48÷2(9+3) = 288 48÷(2(9+3)) = 2 When using single line notation, you read left to right. If a calculator says otherwise, then it is old, and thus unconventional. It's not a matter of order of operations, it's a matter of notation. Or in the case of Matlab and Mathematica, it is a matter of programming notation, because in Matlab you can't type in anything other than single line notation. Single line notation demands that anything under (or to the right of) a division symbol must be in parenthesis, unless you are only dividing by a single value. If we lived in older times (before advanced notation in calculators), the answer might be different. But this is today's convention. ~Dan p.s. Calc IV anyone?
2. I had no idea that the rules of math have changed. Calc IV here and Calc Physics I and II. Closest I get to using this stuff is doing programming for a system that comes up with Load Moment Indication.
48÷(2(9+3)) = 2 48/2x where as x=9+3 (commonly called 12) or as a fraction 48 2(12) this is how I remember it, and I took pre-calc in HS.... maybe I need to go relearn, and upgrade from my ti82
Yeah. I wonder if some answers would change if it read 48/2*(9+3). Anyway, I think the answer is 42. I had to take multivariable calc and vector analysis for my major, but that was 10 years ago. The most challenging math problem I've encountered since then is when I had 3 packages of 5 brats (15 total for those following along at home with an abacus) and 2 packages of 6 buns (12 total, yah)... The answer was stuffing an extra brat in 3 of the buns... mmmmmmm math can be delicious.
48÷2(9+3) = 2 A÷B(x+y) B(x+y) MUST be solved first and is considered as one entity then continue from left to right. For instance: Given the equation 5(-3x - 2) - (x - 3) = -4(4x + 5) + 13 Multiply factors. -15x - 10 - x + 3 = -16x - 20 +13 Group like terms. -16x - 7 = -16x - 7 Add 16x + 7 to both sides and write the equation as follows 0 = 0
The answer is 2. 9+3=12 12*2=24 48/24=2 I don't see what the problem is, there is no distribution since there is no unknow variable. I am not saying I am the best at Math on this forum but I have taken my fair share of math classes. I am currently working on college Calc, next semester it will be Calc 2, After that Multi-variable Calc and the last math class I will need is Linear Algebra and Differential Equations. I can't wait.
That's what it actually is. x(y) is not one entity. What makes you think it is? It's no different than 3x = 3 * x. "x" could involve any number of complex operations to execute before being multiplied by 3, end result is the same. It is short hand for x * (y). That's all there is to it. There's nothing magical about being next to a parenthesis.
The problem is you just executed from right to left instead of left to right. PS: FU herranton, you knew this would happen.
I may have worked right to left but I was following order of operations. Which dictates Parentheses, Multiplication/Division and then Add/Subtract. Plus the problem would be writen to look more like this 48 2(9+3)
Ok so it bugged me about the answer I am correct at 288. I called my coworkers wife who is a high school math teacher. The problem breaks down like this 48/2(9+3) You do (9+3)=12 then you work the problem from left to right so it would be 48/2=24*12=288. Wow thats what I get for second guessing myself
Recheck your math book. Since you are approaching the problem from an order of operations angle, remember that it is multiplication OR Division and Addition OR Subtraction. When you encounter 2 or more of the same order, you work left to right. Anyway, the plane on the treadmill will take off.
You need to work left to right as multiply and divide have no preference over each other. Being next to a parenthesis does not change anything. The problem could be written as 48/2*12. Work left to right and get 288. Try it in any modern software and you will get the same answer. PS. I've taken Calc 1-4 That implies an extra set of parenthesis that aren't there. Like this:
Yes the plane will. LOL. I am going to go with this is a poorly written math problem which was created to do exactly what it is doing.
that is not correct, "2(9+3)" is not one entity, your only divided by 2, not the (9+3), it should be written as: 48 -- (9+3) 2 false, (x+y) must be solved first, then you move left to right starting with A÷B, then that ratio multiplied by the sum of (x+y) if you replace "÷2" with "*(1/2)" (which is the same thing, ask any math professor), maybe it will make more since to those who are for some reason still getting 2. 48*(1/2)*(9+3) = 288
I understand both sides, I refer you back to my last post about a poorly written equation. I better way to write it is the way you wrote it in post #42 that way there is no question in what you are asking for. It is like 12/6*3/2=3 The thing is I would never write it that way, it is confusing to have it wrtten that way.
I understand both sides too. The side that thinks the answer is 2 is wrong, of course, but I understand the thinking (seeing how I came up with 2 to begin with as well)... What's funny about this for me is I got caught out on a similar issue (assumed division operation would be greedier than it is) at work last month and it pissed me off to no end. Apparently I didn't learn.
