48÷2(9+3) = 2 or 288??!?!?!

[`Jammin' Jobus]

Discuss! ~!!!!!!!

 

[FIREL]

BEDMAS...
Brackets always first.

48 / 2 x 12 = 48 / 24 = 2

 

[Fuelbi]

PEMDAS man

P = Parenthesis
E = Exponents
M & D = Multiplication or Division (whichever comes first)
A & S = Addition or Subtraction (whichever comes first)

I hate math

 

[`Jammin' Jobus]

 

[SuperBowser]

It's 288.

But whoever wrote the question should be kicked for being a *******.

 

[Tokaio]

Haha..we had this discussion in our math class a while ago.

You work with the brackets first, so:
48 ÷ 2(12) <-- The term inside the bracket is already finished, so it only functions as multiplication
i.e. 48 ÷ 2 x 12

Then, you always work from left to right in math, so
24 x 12 = 288

 

[Vinylic.]

You see, this is why i hate math so much. These disscussions don't make any sense!!

 

[GreatRit]

if it was 2 it would be 48/(2(9+3)) durrr, get skills plzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Haha..we had this discussion in our math class a while ago.

You work with the brackets first, so:
48 ÷ 2(12) <-- The term inside the bracket is already finished, so it only functions as multiplication
i.e. 48 ÷ 2 x 12

Then, you always work from left to right in math, so
24 x 12 = 288

Wait would it not be multiplication then division?

48 / 24 = 2?

 

[F A N G]

It's obviously 288

Too get it wrong, you'd have to know too much... yet not enough

 

[T-block]

PEMDAS gives the inaccurate impression that multiplication is supposed to come before division. In reality, it should be P, E, MD, AS, with multiplcation/division and addition/subtraction being on the same "tier". If in the same tier, operators with the same precedence should be evaluated from left to right. PEMDAS isn't standard - BEDMAS is also used, which shows that division and multiplication have the same precedence.

The trick lies in the implied multiplication, since using parentheses makes it seem as if 2(12) is one entity that should be evaluated separately. If you replace the parenthetical multiplication with an explicit operator, you get

48 / 2 x 12

In the same way that 5 - 1 + 2 evaluates to 4 + 2 = 6 instead of 5 - 3 = 2, 48 / 2 x 12 evaluates to 24 x 12 = 288 instead of 48 / 24 = 2.

 

[Peeze]

What an awesome thread, i was fooled for sure on this one.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Please
Excuse
My
Dear
Aunt
Sally

Alright, moving onto another problem.

^Someone tell me the name of this equation. I expect it should be quiet easy if you recognize the proper symbols.

 

[Mota]

Damn very good, had me there.

 

[Mic_128]

We always used BIMDAS here. Brackets, Indices, Multi/Division, Addition/Subtraction.

 

[Lythium]

We used BEDMAS.

Go figure!

 

[Jonkku]

We don't use mnemonics to remember stuff like that.

On topic: it's obv 288, because this:

if it was 2 it would be 48/(2(9+3))

 

[Teran]

Man never even had silly acronym memory aids for that at school.

Brackets come first, all you need to know.

SOHCAHTOA for trigonometry, now that's the ****.

Lol I haven't done mathematics as a subject since I was 16, feels good man.

 

[t3h Icy]

Sometimes I wonder if majoring in Math is a good route, and then I see topics like these and feel a lot more reassured.

 

[Fuelbi]

Man wtf are indices? And since when do people say brackets instead of parenthesis lol I've never heard anything other than PEMDAS my entire life.

Btw, if you don't understand this now, you're gonna have one HELL of a time in later grades. Just wait till you have Algebra II because at this point in the year I've basically stopped listening whatsoever to my teacher and stopped doing her classwork (and somehow manage to get Cs in her class >_>) just because whatever she says sounds Chinese to me (and my hunger at that point of the day doesn't help either)

 

[`Jammin' Jobus]

it's just a troll question meant to be sort of ambiguous and for people to mess up due to the horrible notation

 

[eighteenspikes]

this is worse than those 2=1 and .999=1 fallacies the uneducated love to throw around to feel intelligent

 

[rhan]

SOHCAHTOA for trigonometry, now that's the ****.

Some
Old
Hippie
Caught
Another
Hippie
Trippin
On
Acid


I love that one!

 

[LLDL]

At first glance I would've just done 48 \ 18 + 6, 48 \ 24 = 2.

 

[Kole]

the question is not written clearly

it could be either:

[(48)/(2)](9+3)
which would equal 288

or (48)/[(2)(9+3)]
which would equal 2

 

[Grandeza]

this is worse than those 2=1 and .999=1 fallacies the uneducated love to throw around to feel intelligent

Well I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to but .999... does equal 1.

 

[Bigfish]

Some
Old
Hippie
Caught
Another
Hippie
Trippin
On
Acid


I love that one!

thats so dumb

 

[Ocean]

this is worse than those 2=1 and .999=1 fallacies the uneducated love to throw around to feel intelligent

uh, .999... does equal 1. this concept has been around since the 18th century. because of fraction/decimal conversions, every nonzero, terminating decimal can be written two ways: it's common form, and it's twin with trailing 9s. you should do some background research before you denounce something next time.

the 2 = 1 proof, however, is bull****.

 

[eighteenspikes]

uh, .999... does equal 1. this concept has been around since the 18th century. because of fraction/decimal conversions, every nonzero, terminating decimal can be written two ways: it's common form, and it's twin with trailing 9s. you should do some background research before you denounce something next time.

the 2 = 1 proof, however, is bull****.

read that wiki a bit closer and then tell me what (x^2 - 9)/(x-3) equals at x equals 3

 

[M@v]

Discuss! ~!!!!!!!

order of operations. Parenthesis left to right, exponents left to right, then M&D left to right, then A and S left to right.

48÷2(9+3)

48/2(12)

24(12)

288

The only way it would be 2 is if you HAD to do the distributive property on 2(9+3) before working it. That would give you:

48/18+6

48/24

2

 

[DippnDots]

Multiplication is the same thing as division, the division symbol just tells you to multiply by the reciprocal.

20 / 4 = 5
20 * (1/4 or .25) = 5

Same thing with addition and subtraction, but slightly different, where the subtraction sign tells you to add the negative value.

5 - 2 = 3
5 + (-2) = 3

keeping that distinction in mind, order becomes clear easily because they are the same functions, thus you proceed from left to right.

It may seem irrelevant looking at division / subtraction this way, but it's not, and I don't care to explain further.

read that wiki a bit closer and then tell me what (x^2 - 9)/(x-3) equals at x equals 3

PWWWWWWND BY THE DOCTA

 

[Teran]

Some
Old
Hippie
Caught
Another
Hippie
Trippin
On
Acid


I love that one!

Lol, I just said it how it is

Reminds me of krakatoa

 

[Mic_128]

Man wtf are indices?

You know, like squared numbers, number "to the power of _" ect

 

[DippnDots]

Mic_128 is too old to know they're called exponents now.

 

[Teran]

Meaning he got an education when the quality of it was still good.

 

[DippnDots]

preeeeeecisely

 

[Ocean]

read that wiki a bit closer and then tell me what (x^2 - 9)/(x-3) equals at x equals 3

undefined, there's a hole at ( 3 , 6 ), which could also be written as ( 2.999... , 6 ); what is the point in asking this? this does nothing to show that .999... =! 1.

are you implying that you are smarter than over 2 centuries worth of mathematicians?

 

[eighteenspikes]

No, it's not undefined. The answer IS 6. It EQUALS 6. You can use basic algebra to reduce the fraction to (x+3). Just like you can use basic algebra to multiply .999... by 10 and subtract .999... and divide by 9 to equal 1. Duh.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

No, it's not undefined. The answer IS 6. It EQUALS 6. You can use basic algebra to reduce the fraction to (x+3).

I'd like to see prove for this.

Regarding the OP, there is no ambiguity. The term (9+3) is not part of the denominator otherwise it'd have to be written like this: 48 % [2 (9+3)] -> the solution to this equation would be 2.
The crux some people seem to have with this is that the division sign is supposed to be ambiguous when it's clearly not. The whole thing used to be a troll blog on AiB.

 

[Ocean]

you only simplify a function down to it's simpler form to better understand how to graph that function. it does not change the function. that hole still exists because it still exists the unsimplified version, the real version of the function. just because the hole can be removed through simplification doesn't mean it is removed from the function. it's not a constant.

if you're going to say something like that, you need to prove it.

Just like you can use basic algebra to multiply .999... by 10 and subtract .999... and divide by 9 to equal 1. Duh.

you basically just said that .999... = 1. if you're going to argue, at least be consistent.