48÷2(9+3) =???

[Anonymous No.2847599]

i get 2 but wolfram says the answer is 288...


Which is it?

[Anonymous No.2847603]

It's 2
source: math graduate

[Anonymous No.2847604]

>>2847599
2.
You have to do the brackets correctly in wolfram.
48÷(2(9+3))
It did
(48÷2) * (9+3)

[Anonymous No.2847617]

It's 288.

Credentials: Masters in Engineering, Bachelor in Mathematics, 12+ years working as an Engineer making 6 digits by not doing sh*tty math.
HenryBoogers is online now Reply With Quote

[Anonymous No.2847622]

It's 288.

Credentials: Masters in Engineering, Bachelor in Mathematics, 12+ years working as an Engineer making 6 digits by not doing shitty math.

[Anonymous No.2847624]

>>2847622
>Credentials

[Anonymous No.2847625]

>>2847604
Show me a proof of this magical world where it equals 2 algebraically.

It's 288. Learn to OOP, and learn what parentheses signify.

[Anonymous No.2847626]

PEMDAS anyone?

I'm pretty sure its 288 since you do multiplication and division in the order in which they appear.

[Anonymous No.2847627]

no parenthesis around 2(9+3)

[Anonymous No.2847632]

>>2847627
this. the people who show 2 are fucking stupid. "Parenthesis" indicates to do operations inside of them. There is no "assumed" denominator, extra brackets would create that.

[Anonymous No.2847638]

Learn to WolframAlpha

[Anonymous No.2847640]

>>2847625
48/2(9+3) "Take 9 plus 3 and you get 12"
48/2(12) "There are still parenthesis so take 2 and multiply it by 12 and you get 24"
48/24 " Look no more parenthesis. Divid 48/24 and you get mother fuking 2"

=

2

[Anonymous No.2847643]

>>2847638
you inputted it in with extra parenthtesis you fucking dumb piece of shit.
learn to read and type the problem in correctly.

[Anonymous No.2847649]

>>2847640
THIS.

PEMDAS, BIDMAS, BODMAS etc, is for primary school children

From an algebraic standpoint the answer is 2.

Credentials: MEng, with an A in advanced engineering mathematics.

[Anonymous No.2847654]

*sigh* Here we go...

The equation written in formal english is: "48 divided by the product of 2 and the sum of 9 and 3".

First, solve what's in the parenthesis: 9 + 3 = 12
Now we have 48 / 2(12)

Next, multiply the 2 and 12 and you get 24.
Now we have 48 / 24 which is 2.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

[Anonymous No.2847655]

>>2847638

[Anonymous No.2847657]

The answer is ambiguous unless you choose a rule for the ordering of multiplication versus division, and any of these are acceptable:

- multiplication first
- division first
- left to right
- right to left

Best answer is to use parentheses to remove ambiguity.

[Anonymous No.2847662]

>>2847654
Wrong.
it's 288.
multiplication has the same priority as division

but you read a math equation left to right.
Division should be first in this case.
48/2 (12)

[Anonymous No.2847670]

>>2847649
What sort of faggot uses ÷ ?

Credentials: The man who engaged in sexual relations with >>2847622 's mother

[Anonymous No.2847666]

are you all retards its 288.
i am shit at maths and even i can work that out

[Anonymous No.2847671]

so many dumb faggots here...quite lol worthy.
the answer is 2 btw.

[Anonymous No.2847676]

>>2847662

You'd be right if it was 48 / 2 * 12
But it's not, it's 48 / 2(12)

The parenthesis give priority to the product.

[Anonymous No.2847677]

wtf? how can people get 288?
u need to settle anything on the bracket 1st.
so, 2

[Anonymous No.2847679]

>>2847676
the parenthesis goes away after you finish the operations on the inside, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.2847680]

Every single symbol in that question is paternalistic.
Credentials: PhD in Women's Studies

[Anonymous No.2847683]

i'm asian and i say it's 288

[Anonymous No.2847685]

>>2847679

Have you even watched a teacher do equations/proofs on a board? Every fucking mathematician knows this shit man, you might want to review your stuff.

[Anonymous No.2847686]

48/2(9+3) = ?

Order of operations, aka BEDMAS:
Brackets -> Exponents -> Division & Multiplication -> Addition & Subtraction

9 + 3 = 12
48 / 2 = 24
24 * 12 = 288

[Anonymous No.2847688]

GOOGLE IT AND YOU'LL SEE THE ANSWER IS 288.

[Anonymous No.2847689]

>>2847677
It was already settled when 9 and 3 were added. There is no operation in the parentheses thus no priority. (12) means nothing other than 12.

[Anonymous No.2847699]

Anyone who says the answer is 288 obviously did not do any math after high school.

The "left to right" rule is not a law of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.2847704]

>>2847599
48/2(9+3) = (48/2)(11)
48/(2(9+3))=48/22

l2brackets

[Anonymous No.2847708]

>>2847699
>derp

>>2847704
>11

what

[Anonymous No.2847713]

[Anonymous No.2847717]

>>2847704
are you fucking retarded?
9+3=12...not 11....

[Anonymous No.2847721]

I'll solve it incase people try to over complicate things, its basic algebra

48÷2(9+3)

P-arenthesis

48÷2(12)

E-xponent

none

M-ultiplication

48÷24

D-ivision

2

A-ddition

answer found

S-ubtraction

answer found

Not rocket science.

[Anonymous No.2847726]

>>2847708
misread 9+3 as 9+2
my bad, not got my glasses on

[Anonymous No.2847735]

48÷2(9+3)=288
48÷(2(9+3))=2

/thread

[Anonymous No.2847737]

>>2847721
48÷2(9+3)=(48÷2)(9+3)
you solved
48÷(2(9+3))

[Anonymous No.2847750]

implied parents: (48÷2)*(9+3)

left to right motherfuckers

[Anonymous No.2847752]

I'm lol'ing at the people who think parenthesis magically disappear once you simplify everything inside of it.

In order to algebraic solve equations, you have to think about "terms", not numbers. The entire equation is a single term that can be broken down into smaller terms. Let's identify each of terms:

48
(9+3) which is multiplied by 2 giving the larger term 2(9+3). You can simplify this by distributing, giving you (18 + 6) or 24.

Now all that's left is the diving operation between 48 and 24, giving you 2.

Most calculators fail hard when it comes to parenthesis, didn't your teachers tell you this? You have to start trusting your own mind more and stop relying on flawed technology, especially if you want to take courses in Calculus or Modern Algebra.

[Anonymous No.2847753]

as it is written it's 288.

[Anonymous No.2847755]

>>2847699
>The "left to right" rule is not a law of mathematics.

just that every fucking math software does it that way.

[Anonymous No.2847756]

>>2847755

The founders of modern mathematics (300 some years ago) didn't give a fuck about software. Damn people, can't you think for yourselves instead of blindly trusting a machine?

[Anonymous No.2847760]

>>2847676
The parenthesis give more than priority to the product.
parenthesis adds * to it. the only way to alter it is to add +-/ or = to cancel out the *

[Anonymous No.2847765]

>>2847657
>The answer is ambiguous

Incorrect. The standard mathematical order of operations already has that covered. If you are doing it in any other order, you are wrong.

Complete the contents of brackets first, using these same order of operations within each.
Simplify exponents next, from highest order to lowest.
Multiplication and division next in the order they appear, left to right.
Addition and subtraction last in the order they appear, left to right.

Do not forget that a number bordering a bracket is equivalent to multiplication with the result of that bracket.

>>2847756

The software does it that way for a reason. It's programmed to obey the rules of math.

[Anonymous No.2847768]

solution: use more fucking brackets when telling a computer to do something. A computer does EXACTLY what you tell it to, and if you have ambiguous shit in there, you're gonna get a retarded answer.

[Anonymous No.2847769]

>>2847756
>Damn people, can't you do some random non-conventional shit and defend your bullshit like it's your life?

ftfy

[Anonymous No.2847772]

to you people who answer 2:
what is 2/2*2 equal to then?

[Anonymous No.2847776]

>>2847599
>which is it?

It's 288, you got it wrong. Stop trying to multiple right to left.

[Anonymous No.2847778]

>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655
>>2847655

2fags shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.2847779]

Seriously? Are you in fucking 6th grade?

[Anonymous No.2847783]

>>2847655
That's because you need to put brackets around the denominator, idiot

[Anonymous No.2847786]

>>2847772
.5 or 1/2

[Anonymous No.2847788]

>>2847783
OP was
>48÷2(9+3) =???
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.2847791]

>>2847765

Then please explain to me why calculators fail hard when it comes to simple equations like these. If you think a calculator will just automatically give you the right answer no matter what, I feel really bad for you. There's a reason my Calculus II professor from Cornell banned any kind of calculator use in class altogether: Students tend to use them as an excuse for not studying the formal ways to solve equations by hand. Calculators are merely tools to verify solutions or to gain practical accuracy.

Change every number to a veriable and you'll see that the answer is 2:

a / b(c + d) simplifies to -
a / (bc + bd) by the distributive law. Need I say more?

[Anonymous No.2847794]

>>2847783
except that as OP described it the denominator is just 2, but made the same mistake as him and just assumed that (9+3) is a part of the denominator.

[Anonymous No.2847795]

>>2847791
Not him, but the calculator isn't failing hard. You are.
Why the fuck would every company make their calculators wrong on purpose?

[Anonymous No.2847796]

>>2847772

2. Notice that you did not include any parenthesis, so you can simply go left to right in this case.

[Anonymous No.2847798]

>>2847791
a / b(c + d) simplifies to: a(c/b+d/b)
(c+d) is not a part of the denominator, otherwise it would be indicated.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2847802]

>>2847796

>people implying a^b(c+d) = a^(b(c+d))

[Anonymous No.2847803]

>>2847796
so you are saying that parenthesis gives priority to terms being multiplied with it and not just the terms inside? wow.

[Anonymous No.2847807]

48/2(9+3)
48/2(12) = 48/2*12
left to right operation
48/2 = 24
24*12 = 288

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2847808]

>>2847791

Retard, a / b(c+d) simplifies to a(c/b+d/b)

Stop making shit up.

[Anonymous No.2847819]

>>2847791
a / b(c + d) = (a)(1/b)(c+d) = a(c/b+d/b) != a(cb+db)

[Anonymous No.2847820]

>>2847795

They don't do it wrong on purpose. Calculators simply interpret the inputted calculations slightly different than how humans do. They only do what their algorithms tell them to do. Calculators are operators, not thinkers.

8 / 2(3) is read out loud by a human as "The quotient of 8 and the product of 2 and 3". This might sound a little confusing in this form, which makes parentheses so wonderful in helping us understand (2 * 3 is an operation, 2(3) is a term). However, a calculator reads it as "8 divided by 2 times 3". This isn't thinking in terms, which algebraically, is wrong.

[Anonymous No.2847821]

>>2847779
do you mean
4th grade?
this shit is taught in 5th grade.

[Anonymous No.2847825]

>>2847791
using the distributive law properly it would be
9(48/2)+3(48/2) = 288
or
c(a/b)+d(a/b) = 288
or
ac/b+ad/b = 288

[Anonymous No.2847827]

>>2847808

How the FUCK did you come up with dividing both c and d by b? You're calling ME a retard? Yeah, I'm out. 6/10 I must say on that trolling job.

[Anonymous No.2847831]

>>2847791
I haven't been allowed to use a calculator in a math course since high school.
I do expect the calculator to give me the correct answer EVERY SINGLE TIME because I'm not retarded when typing equations in, I leave no room for ambiguity.

[Anonymous No.2847833]

>>2847827
a few people point out your error and you storm out in butthurt rage.
good show.

[Anonymous No.2847836]

>>2847820
No you fucktard. 8/2(3) is read as 8 divided 2 times 3, you have some serious issues with English. Do you go "a, c preceded by b, d, e, f, g?", you dumbass?
"The quotient of 8 and the product of 2 and 3" is 8/(2*3).
2 * 3 and 2(3) are the SAME THING.

[Anonymous No.2847841]

>>2847827
>In third grade
>Don't understand math
>HURRR TROOLLLLS
Stay classy

Come back when you are over 15 (or is it 18?)

[Anonymous No.2847849]

>>2847836

2*3 and 2(3) both indicate multiplication, yes. However, 2 * 3 is an operation, or "2 times 3". 2(3) is a term, or "the product of 2 and 3". Think about it, and you'll realize the small difference. If you want to ignore algebra, then the answer is 288. If you use algebraic reasoning, the answer is 2. End of story.

[Anonymous No.2847854]

>>2847849
If you want to be mathematically incorrect, the answer is 2.

[Anonymous No.2847857]

how is everyone so retarded?

48/2(9+3)
now we solve what's in the brackets
48/2 *12
now we solve the division
24 * 12
288

if the question was
48/(2(9+3))
then we solve the brackets
48/(2*9+2*3)
48/(18+6)
48/24=2

to all you twats that are saying it is 2 then what is
2/2 * 2 ?
since we are dividing and multiplying by 2 it cancels out
2/2 * 2 = 2
2/2 * 2 != 2/(2*2) = 1/4

brackets, learn to use them

[Anonymous No.2847859]

>>2847849
So you are saying 2 * 3 can't be read as "the product of 2 and 3"? Seriously?

[Anonymous No.2847865]

to the people arguing about the order...
multiplication and division are commutative so the order doesn't matter at all..

4/5*9 = 7.2
4*9/5 = 7.2

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2847867]

>>2847827

I'll show you every single way of your stupidity

a/b(c+d) = a * 1/b * (c+d) = (ac+ad) * 1/b = a * (c/b*d/b) = ac/b + ad/b

a/b(c) =! a/(b(c))

learn the fucking difference.

[Anonymous No.2847871]

>>2847849
That some fine bullshit reasoning thar, son.

[Anonymous No.2847877]

>>2847865
yes and that's the thing, 48/2(9+3) = (9+3)48/2 = 288
it's the 2-fags who don't get this and just assume that the parenthesis term is a part of the denominator.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2847888]

>>2847867

>(c/b+d/b)

fixed, obviously*

[Anonymous No.2847889]

>>2847859

The problem I'm explaining is that people are putting things that aren't even operations into the PEMDAS algorithm. Maybe putting the equation into THIS form would make it more clear:

a
-- (fraction bar)
b(c + d)

2(9+3) is all one term, therefore the grouping presented above is correct. You can't deny this.

[Anonymous No.2847893]

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm
Last example.

[Anonymous No.2847901]

>mfw people saying its 2

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2847903]

>>2847889

>implying / is a fraction bar
>implying OP didn't use ÷ insead of /, which is even less of a damn fraction bar

[Anonymous No.2847913]

>>2847903

Implying fractions aren't quotients

[Anonymous No.2847929]

>>2847893

Holy shit, THANK YOU for giving me actual evidence instead of having to waste my time trying to explain this to these idiots.

[Anonymous No.2847930]

>>2847889
>>2(9+3) is all one term, therefore the grouping presented above is correct. You can't deny this.

no it isn't.

[Anonymous No.2847934]

What wolfram reads
48/2(9+3)
as
(48/2)(9+3)
when it comes across that first parenthesis in the original, it places everything that occurred before that in its own parentheses.

This has practically nothing to do with order of operations, and everything to do with how math is done by computers.

[Anonymous No.2847936]

>>2847889
still doing it wrong
a
-- * (c + d)
b

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2847938]

>>2847913

A division is a division.
A fraction bar is a division combined with brackets for everything above and under the fraction bar.

/ is a division
÷ is a division
/ is not a fraction bar
÷ is not a fraction bar

you know what?

a/b(c+d) = (a)/(b)*(c+d)

Suck it.

[Anonymous No.2847943]

>>2847893
>>sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!

[Anonymous No.2847948]

>>2847938

Almost. It's (a/b) * 1/(c+d). The (c + d) term stays in the denominator. This is the same thing is a / b(c+d) if you havn't noticed, which is exactly what I said.

[Anonymous No.2847949]

48÷2(9+3) = (48÷2)(9+3) = 288
if you want to divide by the product of 2 and the sum of 9 and 3, you have to write
48÷(2(9+3)) which equals 2.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2847952]

>>2847948

>implying a multiplication has a higher order than a division

What the fuck am I reading.

[Anonymous No.2847953]

enough this shit is too advance for laymen like us. Can we start debating about God instead??

[Anonymous No.2847955]

>>2847948
Actually it is It's (a/b) * (c+d)/1

[Anonymous No.2847956]

>Implying there's an answer to this.

It's ambiguous, you faggots. Calculators don't give "it's fucking ambiguous" errors, So the designer chose one of the interpretations and went with it.

[Anonymous No.2847959]

>>2847956
>math is ambiguous

HAHAHAHA
No.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2847963]

>>2847956

It's not, / is defined as a simple division, equivalent to ÷

NOT a fucking fraction bar

[Anonymous No.2847964]

>>2847952

Exactly where did I even imply that? Multiplication has the SAME priority as division because they're the exact same thing. The parentheses are what makes the difference.

[Anonymous No.2847965]

>>2847956
It's not ambiguous at all. The answer is 288.

[Anonymous No.2847968]

>>2847963

Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea that 2 divided by 3 ISN'T the exact same as:

2
---
3

Oh wait, they are? Huh...

[Anonymous No.2847973]

>>2847964
and multiplying with a parenthesis doesn't grant magical priority either.

[Anonymous No.2847974]

>>2847968
If you want to write it that way, the problem is:
48 (9+3)
--- * ---
2 1

[Anonymous No.2847975]

ITT faggots who don't know what ambiguous means

[Anonymous No.2847976]

When you're writing a fraction as an equation with a division sign and there's a polynomial in the numerator/denominator, you need parantheses whereas, with a fraction, you don't because it's all underneath the bar

[Anonymous No.2847982]

These are my final words, well not my words, just the words of the article linked earlier:

"This next example displays an issue that almost never arises but, when it does, there seems to be no end to the arguing.

* Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1.

16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 (**)
= 16 ÷ 4 + 1
= 4 + 1
= 5"

Bye, kiddies. Good luck in your studies.

[Anonymous No.2847985]

>>2847655
Alternatively, in a calculator that isn't an American POS...

Remember what have we learned today: Japanese > American

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2847991]

>>2847964

>Paranthesis having a value outside of the actual brackets

you know what?

a^bc ... mh... I'll just put a bracket there! a^b(c) OMG IT'S FUCKING MAGICALLY CONVERTED TO a^(bc)

[Anonymous No.2847993]

>>2847963
It doesn't matter if it's a fucking fraction bar. What makes the difference is how the calculator places implicit parentheses.

[Anonymous No.2847996]

GODDAMNIT

PARENTHESIS ARE TERMS. ANY CONSTANT IN FRONT OF A PARENTHESIS DENOTES A COEFFICIENT OF THAT TERM, NOT ANOTHER TERM

ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY 100% RETARDED? 2.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848006]

>>2847993

>implicit parentheses

Seriously, gtfo.

[Anonymous No.2848008]

Answer is 288. Another answer is wrong.

[Anonymous No.2848011]

>>2847982
(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!)

[Anonymous No.2848016]

>>2848006
SEE
>>2847975
see what google does? it places parentheses around 48/2 to eliminate the ambiguity. there are other calculators that place parentheses around the 2(9+3).

[Anonymous No.2848017]

>mfw /sci/ seriously does not understand order of operations

I like this board because of how intelligent you guys are, but I honestly have very little respect for you now

If it were 48÷(2(9+3)), the answer would be 2.
However, it is not 48÷(2(9+3)), so the answer is 288.

[Anonymous No.2848023]

>>2848017
Once you finish algebra 1 you'll understand. :)

[Anonymous No.2848024]

>>2848016
>there are other calculators that place parentheses around the 2(9+3).
Certainly, but that doesn't make them right.

[Anonymous No.2848034]

>>2848017
>>2847985
>>2847975
Why don't you understand that it's an ambiguous case?

LEFT TO RIGHT IS NOT A RULE OF MATHEMATICS. THE PROBLEM SHOULD BE SOLVABLE IN ANY ORDER WHETHER TO TREAT IT AS (9+3) OR 1/(9+3) IS THE QUESTION, THERE IS NO AGREED UPON ANSWER

[Anonymous No.2848035]

>>2848017
Seriously, /sci/, what the fuck?

[Anonymous No.2848038]

>>2848034
But the only thing the 42 is being divided by is the two, because there aren't brackets around the "2(9+3)"

[Anonymous No.2848039]

>people with a little math education and no observational ability
>don't realize that the rule has an ambiguity and isn't rigorous
>mathematicians

[Anonymous No.2848040]

>>2848038
Whoops -- I meant "the 48"

[Anonymous No.2848049]

>>2848024
No, but how actually mathematicians write this shit out and evaluate it does.

The reason a number is put in front of a set of parenthesis is to say "This number will be a part of the same term as this one." It's essentially a coefficient. By using the division sign (hardly used because fraction bars are so much better) he's saying "This term will be divided by the term that comes after".

In no alternate dimension with a batshit insane set of math rules would they decide that what they wanted the first term to be divided by is THE COEFFICIENT OF ANOTHER TERM. That's just crazy. If they wanted that, they'd be multiplying 2 parenthesis, or putting the entirety of the first term over 2.

[Anonymous No.2848056]

/thread

[Anonymous No.2848059]

>>2847996

X^2 is a term. 2 is a coefficient. However, 2X^2 IS a single term...

[Q. Mechanics No.2848065]

c'mon people. order of operations 48/2(9+3)
48/2(11) then multiply and divide from left to right
48-2=24
24(11)= you do the math

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848069]

>>2848034
>>2848049

Just because they want to drop and add shit on the go without any general consistency doesn't make it valid.

I'm encountering this oh so often in my studies and it makes me rage every - fucking - time.

It's enough that we're disregarding any sign for multiplication operations already, but there's at least some general consensus to how you should interpret it.
Interpreting implicit parentheses on the go just because you're too damn lazy to put them properly?
Give me a break.
It's sloppy.
It's lazy.

Nothing else.

[Anonymous No.2848071]

>>2848049
As an "actually mathematician", I disagree. While I agree that no sane mathematician would ever write this while intending it to mean 288, I daresay that nobody would write it aiming for 2 either -- which means that to parse this formula, one must rely on the mechanical definition, which resolves to 288.

[Anonymous No.2848073]

>>2848069
This. Equations should always be taken at face value, with no inferred parentheses (because all implications are really only inferences on the other end).

[Q. Mechanics No.2848077]

>>2848065
sorry mistype
48/2=24
lol

[Anonymous No.2848078]

>>2848034
>ambiguous case
NOPE

it isn't 1/(9+3) it is (9+3)/1. There's no ambiguity.

[Anonymous No.2848080]

>The "left to right" rule is not a law of mathematics.
All you mofos need to learn what order of operations is.
>mfw

[Anonymous No.2848083]

>>2847599
10/10 one of the best and most subtle troll I've seen in a long time.

[Anonymous No.2848084]

>>2848049
>actually mathematicians

[Anonymous No.2848093]

>mfw /sci/ is this easy to troll

[Anonymous No.2848094]

>>2848073
>>2848073
>>2848073
>>2848073
>>2848073

[Anonymous No.2848097]

>Mfw anyone who thinks the answer is 288 passed algebra class

[Anonymous No.2848099]

>>2848093
Laughing, the troll(OP) get back to his lairs deep in the /b/ forest

PS: I don't mean troll*OP

[Anonymous No.2848105]

>>2848097

>implying it isn't

[Q. Mechanics No.2848107]

>>2848065
lol sorry apparently my typing is 0/10 today 9+3=12 not 11 lol

[Anonymous No.2848109]

>>2848097

[Indexer !t1.kaRtHUs No.2848113]

>48÷2*(9+3)
>48÷2*12
>24*12
>288

Yep, /sci/ is easy to troll.

[Anonymous No.2848115]

alright, do this from left to right 3^5^7

[Anonymous No.2848120]

>>2848113
You're right, /sci/ is easy to troll, just like you..

[Anonymous No.2848125]

>>2848113
x(y+z) is one operation....it equals xy+xz you cannot change this

even if it is w/x(y+z) its still w/(xy+xz)

and maybe this will help

w/x(y+z)=0
x(y+z)=0*1/w therefore w is the numerator and x(y+z) is the denominator

meaning 48/2(9+3)=
48
-----
2(9+3)

Jeezus fuck you guys are stupid.

[Anonymous No.2848130]

My dad who is a CPA 38 year federal auditor just said the answer is 2.

You have to multiple the # connected to the parenthesis.

[Anonymous No.2848131]

>3^5^7
5..E+16

[Anonymous No.2848132]

>>2848125
NOPE

48
--- * (9+3)
2

[Anonymous No.2848136]

>>2848125
x(y+z) = x* (y+z)

ParenthesesEMDAS, stay inside the parentheses, don't add shit until its their turn.

[Indexer !t1.kaRtHUs No.2848138]

>>2848125
>x(y+z) is one operation
x*(y+z) is not one operation.
neither is (x(y+z))

[Anonymous No.2848139]

>>2848130
>multiple the # connected to the parenthesis
The number connected to the parenthesis is 48/2

[Anonymous No.2848140]

Jesus Christ, what a shitstorm.

Lets recap:

(1)
>(48/2)(9+3)
=288

(2)
>48/(2*(9+3))
=2

Since OP is a fag or a troll, he made it ambiguous by purpose, however, if we go STRICTLY by rules, he wrote (1). Therefore, answer is 288. However, since most of us are not fags (mostly just ignorant assholes), we know that it it equally possible that he meant (2), in which the answer would be 2. Since we don't know if that is the case, we must go with (1), simply because OP wrote that, not (2).

Sweet balls of Jesus..

[Anonymous No.2848143]

>>2848097
Didn't you ever learn the BEDMAS rule dumbass.

BRACKETS, EXPONENTIATION, DIVISION, MULTIPLICATION, ADDITION, SUBTRACTION

1. 48/2(9+3)
We do the brackets first.
2. 48/2(12)
There is no exponentiation so we do the division next.
3. 24(12)
Then we do multiplication
4. 288

C'mon you stupid fuckers this is high school maths level.

[Anonymous No.2848144]

288fags solve this

1/2x

x = 2, what is the answer?

[Anonymous No.2848145]

The confusion seems to come from the fact that 48÷2 is not expressed as a vertical ratio, and from the inference of nonexistent parentheses
Am I right?

[Anonymous No.2848150]

>>2848132
This. If you don't put denominators in parenthesis, Wolfram likes to multiply separately. So 1 / 2*3 shouls be expressed at 1/(2*3) [or 1/2/3]

[Anonymous No.2848152]

>high school maths

your country must have a horrible education/math system if this is high school maths.

[Indexer !t1.kaRtHUs No.2848153]

>>2848144
for 1/(2x) it's 1/4, for 0.5x is 1.

[Anonymous No.2848154]

Protip: If you find this case in class, always ask the teacher/ lecturer how he/she wants it to be done. There are two ways to do it, and it will give different result. Most people would get 2, some will get 288. Think I'm trolling you? Read the link posted in previous post http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm

Look at third case, and read the explanation afterward. It have to be solved using consensus, and not HURR DURRR it's logic.

[Q. Mechanics No.2848156]

ok. im bored so im gonna play some more lololol
48/2(9+3) is read as such:
forty-eight divided by 2 times the quantity nine plus three. this answer is 288.
were it read:
forty-eight divided the quantity 2 times the quantity nine plus three, then the answer would be two but that would be written: 48/(2(9+3)
inb4 im a math grad my dad is an accountant blahblah bs I dont care. Im playing along with the troll cause im fucking bored

[Anonymous No.2848158]

>>2848144
it's obviously (1/2)*2 = 1, duh

[Anonymous No.2848159]

>this thread
>/sci/'s face when

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848164]

>>2848140

>Since we don't know if that is the case

And that's why this makes me so mad.
There's always some sloppy asshole disregarding the general rules and when I do it properly he gets into my face with 'but there's inferred parentheses!'

You know what?
Do it right or fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.2848167]

2^3^4 = 4096

T/F?

[Anonymous No.2848169]

>>2848144
The answer is 1.

1
-- * 2
2

[Q. Mechanics No.2848175]

>>2848144
Using a variable changes the problem 2x is a single number with the x as a variable. so 1/2x is 1/(2*2) or 1/4
a coefficient and a variable are always inside implied parentheses

[Anonymous No.2848177]

>>2848144
The answer is obviously 1. You do division first. Always.

[Anonymous No.2848178]

>>2848083
>most subtle troll
Indeed, and one with an instinctive grasp of the deeply religious nature of the merkin psyche.

[Anonymous No.2848179]

>>2848177
Nono. You always do Implicit Parentheses first.

[Anonymous No.2848181]

>>2848175
>>2848175
>a coefficient and a variable are always inside implied parentheses
Really?

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848182]

>>2848175

>a coefficient and a variable are always inside implied parentheses

No.

[Anonymous No.2848185]

>>2848175
Nope, doing it wrong
1
-- * x
2

[Q. Mechanics No.2848189]

order of operations "PEMDAS" is only pemdas because it is a better acronym than the actual order of operations
parentheses exponent (multiplication and division) (addition and subtraction)

[Anonymous No.2848194]

>thinking you do division before multiplication
>implying division/multiplication don't have the same priority, and aren't just used left to right
>implying its not the same as addition and subtraction
>mfw

[Anonymous No.2848205]

>>2848189
Division always comes first, that's what every text book I have says and how every calculator, google and wolfram say do it to.

[Anonymous No.2848213]

>>2848205
>he never learned to use brackets on a calculator to ensure proper order of operation

[Anonymous No.2848215]

>>2848194
That's clearly not true, you can see in OPs example either that doing multiplication first changes the equation.

[Anonymous No.2848218]

>>2848205
google tells me your wrong

[Anonymous No.2848219]

x(y) does not mean that x and y are the same coefficient; it is equivalent to saying x*y

[Q. Mechanics No.2848221]

>>2848213
see I dont use a calculator. Im in real college with real math where they dont let us use calculators because we are engineers and need to know how to math in our brains

[Anonymous No.2848223]

example of why implied parenthesis don't work:

1/2x = 6
1/(2x=6)
1/(x=3)
=1/3

[Anonymous No.2848225]

>>2848215
>implying i didnt say left to right

[Anonymous No.2848227]

some people have got it right, it's just that there's a reason ÷ is not used in standard math notation, it's because 48÷2(9+3) could be both

48
---------
2(9+3)
=2

and

48
---- (9+3)
2
=288

there'd have to be something like a "left-to-right rule" *if* you wanted to use ÷ unambiguously. there isn't. grown-up math uses the more expressive notation above instead. left-to-right is just a convention your calculator uses to parse the expression.

[Anonymous No.2848236]

Brb, losing faith in humanity.

[Anonymous No.2848241]

>>2848221
Yes, real math in real university where they still use (÷). I'm sooooo impressed.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848242]

>>2848221
>>2848227

Let me shatter your little world:

There is no implied parenthesis in correctly applied math. Parenthesis is either there or not.
Both ÷, / and * are just either a division or multiplication. Nothing else.

That you're using your oh so precious 'implied parenthesis' makes it even worse and you should be slapped every time you're doing it.

[Anonymous No.2848244]

EVERYONE ARCHIVE THIS THREAD.

it will forever be evidence of /sci/'s stupidity.

[Anonymous No.2848246]

>>2848164
Are you mildly retarded ? He basically said 'since we don't know what op meant, we must use rules on what he wrote', and you reply with hurr durr u disregard ruels.

[Anonymous No.2848250]

>>2848242
I just got the most amazing visual of this guy that pops up and smacks you in the face whenever you infer the existence of parentheses that aren't there

[Anonymous No.2848251]

48÷2(9+3) = 48 * 1/2 * (9+3)
= 48 * 1/2 * (12)
= 48 * 6
= 288

If you got 2 you divided by (9+3), therefore you're a retard.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848252]

>>2848246

>implying I've offended the person I've quoted at all

[Anonymous No.2848255]

Thanks for your request.
It has been added to our database and the thread will be archived as soon as enough request for that thread have been made.
This thread has been requested 1 times now.

[Anonymous No.2848258]

>>2848255
>>2848255
>>2848255
how do u request to archive?

[Anonymous No.2848261]

ITT

[Anonymous No.2848262]

48 ÷ 2 (9+3)
=48 ÷ 2 * (9+3) <-- 2(9+3) = 2*(9+3)
=48 ÷ 2 * 12 <-- parentheses first
=24 * 12 <-- division before multiplication
=288

If you're convinced that the answer is 2, then please explain where I've gone wrong.

[Anonymous No.2848266]

It's funny how people are shouting out PEMDAS and still end up with 288 since you multiply BEFORE dividing.

48/2(9+3) Parenthesis first.
48/2*12 now Multiply
48/24 finally Divide
2

[Anonymous No.2848269]

>>2848258

type
"{request=archive}>>2847599{/request}" without the quotations then your post will come out like this >>2848255

[Anonymous No.2848270]

Mythbusters is the greatest science show ever!

[Anonymous No.2848273]

>>2848262
2(12) is not 2 * 12
2(12) denotes a value equal to the product of 2 and 12. You cannot treat it as 2*12.
if it said 48÷2*(9+3) the answer would be 288
>>2848266
what you're saying is completely wrong. Multiplication and division are commutative. Like I said here: >>2847865

4/5*9 = 7.2
4*9/5 = 7.2

[Anonymous No.2848274]

>>2848269
{request=archive}>>2847599{/request}

[Anonymous No.2848275]

Thanks for your request.
It has been added to our database and the thread will be archived as soon as enough request for that thread have been made.
This thread has been requested 5 times now

[Anonymous No.2848279]

{request=archive}>>2847599{/request}

[Anonymous No.2848281]

>>2848266

L2PEMDAS

P
E
MD
AS

M and D together, A and S together. You can't use PEDMAS to show that multiplication comes before division, because it doesn't.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848289]

>>2848281

by the way

>people needing an acronym for remembering the order of operations

[Anonymous No.2848295]

{request=archive}>>2847599{/request}

[Anonymous No.2848299]

48/2(9+3)
48/(18+6)
48/24
2
Well that was easy.

[Anonymous No.2848302]

Just get rid of the division by multiplying by the reciprocal instead. That makes the problem this:

48*.5*(9+3) = 288

[Anonymous No.2848303]

>>2848299
Yeah, usually when you fuck stuff up it seems easy.

[Anonymous No.2848306]

I don't think you can request from 4chan, but you can go to 4chanarchive.

[Anonymous No.2848308]

>>2848299
>>well that was easy
aparently it's easy to do it WRONG.

[Anonymous No.2848320]

EVERYONE GO TO 4CHANARCHIVE AND REQUEST THIS THREAD!!!!1

ONLY 4 MORE!!!!!

[Anonymous No.2848325]

Depends on how you interpret the notation.

[Anonymous No.2848331]

>>2848299
48/2(9+3)
48*(9/2+3/2)
48*6
288
That was easy right?

[Anonymous No.2848339]

>>2848325
What's to interpret? There is no ambiguity in the notation.

[Anonymous No.2848340]

>>2848262
You don't have to do division before multiplication, that's not a real rule. Learn to associative property.

[Anonymous No.2848342]

This is like that "flip 2 coins, one is heads, what are the odds the other one is heads?"

come on, it's fucking ambigious, can everybody stop arguing now?

[Anonymous No.2848355]

>>2848331
^^^^^^^_________________
2(9+3)|48

[Anonymous No.2848356]

>>2848342

/facepalm

The example you gave is unambiguous, as is OP's question.

[Anonymous No.2848357]

>>2848342
how is it ambiguous at all?

2(12) = 2 X 12

are you guys retarded? seriously?
its NOT PARENTHESES ITS MULTIPLICATION!

[Anonymous No.2848363]

Holy hell, this thread is hilariously stupid.

We should archive it as a monument to /sci/'s intellectual capacity.

[Anonymous No.2848369]

>>2848357
2 X 12
Is that like 2x(12)

[Anonymous No.2848370]

>>2847802

[Anonymous No.2848376]

>>2848363
we need 3 more!!!

[Anonymous No.2848384]

>stupid pedmas question on front page
>about to scroll past
>219 replies

God fucking damnit.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848386]

>>2848384

>I'm not doing shit today

But you're on /sci/

[Anonymous No.2848397]

>>2848384
>pedmas

[Anonymous No.2848403]

would anyone read 2/3(x+2) as 2/3 * (x+2)?

[Anonymous No.2848405]

needs 1 request, einsteins.

[Anonymous No.2848407]

>>2848034
You are all faggots.
48/(2(9+3)) =/= 48/2*(9+3)=48(9+3)/2

It's not fucking ambiguous at all bitch.

[Anonymous No.2848408]

>>2848403
Everyone doing it right would, yes. Use the reciprocal rule if division is giving your problems.

[Anonymous No.2848410]

Wow, amazing troll!

[Anonymous No.2848412]

>>2848403
Yes, because that's how it is unless you have more parentheses or another division sign.

2/3(x+2) is not the same as 2/(3(x+2)) = 2/3/(x+2)

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848416]

>>2848403

2 / 3 * (x+2) = <span class="math">2*\frac{1}{3}*(x + 2) =/= 2*\frac{1}{3*(x+2)}[/spoiler]

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848434]

>>2848403

2 / 3 * ( x + 2 ) = <span class="math">2*\frac{1}{3}*(x+2) \not= 2*\frac{1}{3*(x+2)}

>just remembered the =! command[/spoiler]

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848439]

>>2848403

2 / 3 * ( x + 2 ) = <span class="math">2*\frac{1}{3}*(x+2) \not= 2*\frac{1}{3*(x+2)}[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.2848440]

>>2848407
just because you say it isn't. doesn't mean it isn't.
>>2848339
because the ÷ symbol is primarily used when inputting values into a calculator and there is no universal implementation. As you can see in this thread, various calculators interpret it differently.

[Anonymous No.2848443]

Archived the intellectual epitome of /sci/

[Anonymous No.2848451]

Why are there so many replies to this?

[Anonymous No.2848463]

>>2848451
Anyone giving a definite answer here is a retard.

There's a reason you stop seeing ÷ after 4th grade.

[Anonymous No.2848472]

>>2847599
Are you fucking kidding me

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848479]

>>2848440

÷ or / aren't the operation itself, but a prefix applying to the next value or higher operation

3 / 4 = 3 * (/4) != 4 / 3
(obviously you have to put an 1 before the / for continuity)

The same mechanic that applies to -

3 - 4 = 3 + (-4) != 4 - 3

You can't go 3 - 4 + (8 - 3) = 3 - (4 + (8 - 3)) just like you can't go 3 / 4 * (8 - 3) = 3 / (4 * (8 - 3))

>unless you're a retard, of course

[Anonymous No.2848494]

>>2848479
That's one interpretation.
There is another.

why is this so hard for you.
>>2847985

[Anonymous No.2848498]

>>2848443
great success
pic related, it's /sci/
/thread

[Anonymous No.2848504]

>>2848479
if you interpret / as a fraction bar.
3 / 4 * (8 - 3) == 3 / (4 * (8 - 3))

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848518]

>>2848494

I'm seeing the interpretation you're linking there almost every day, but it applies the prefixes to the wrong values because it implies parenthesis.

>>2848504

That's an inconstistent answer, the most thing I see is stuff like:

2/3(x+a²)*3b=2/3*(x+a²)*3b and they mean 2/[3(x+a²)]*3b (written in proper parenthesis) with it. So it can't be a fraction bar in this case.

[Anonymous No.2848543]

>>2848518
It's not wrong. This is calculator notation.

On my TI-83, / is division and you'd have to place parentheses around 48/(2+(9+3)) to get 2 as a result.

On that CASIO, / is a fraction bar, and you'd have to write it as (48/2) * (9+3) in order to get 288 as a result.

There is no standard of notation with these calculators. This style of notation did not exist before calculators.

Therefore, the answer is ambiguous, because the notation was designed for calculators, and there is no standard for the notation.
(48/2) * (9+3) is 288 using any calculator that supports parentheses.
48/(2+(9+3)) is 2 using any calculator that supports parentheses.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848552]

>>2848543

I was just referring to the general set of rules, which defines / or ÷ as an indicator for the inverse multiplicant. ( a/b = a*b^-1 )

One's using implied parenthesis, the other doesn't.
I can't see how the one using inferred parentheses can be the mechanically correct way.

[Anonymous No.2848553]

>>2848543
To reiterate. It's not a mistake, it's a design choice. Whoever designed that calculator thought it would be better to treat / as a fraction bar than simple division.

[Anonymous No.2848559]

=====
=====
=====
=====

=====
=====
=====
=====
EVERYONE, LISTEN UP

YOU SOLVE SOMETHING IN ORDER FROM LEFT TO RIGHT WHICH MEANS:
48 DIVIDED BY 2 IS 24 MULTIPLIED BY 12 IS 288

=====
=====
=====
=====

=====
=====
=====
=====

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848562]

>>2848553

Does the 'fraction bar' on your casio apply to EVERYTHING written after it?

If not, it's a sloppy and incorrect design.

[Anonymous No.2848566]

Actually you solve brackets first so it's
2(9+3) or 2(12)
Which is 24
48/24
2

Stay in school kiddo

[Anonymous No.2848567]

>>2848559
It doesn't even matter, using the reciprocal rule to eliminate the division, the only possible answer is 288.

[Anonymous No.2848574]

>>2848552
that's not true at all.
it doesn't matter what order you do multiplication and division in. so long as you do them correctly.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848586]

>>2848574

a/b*(c+d) = a/(b*(c+d)) or a*(b*(c+d))^(-1) would certainly be an incorrect way of doing them.

You just can't apply the inverse to values unrelated to it. (and you are, imaginary parenthesis is no correct parenthesis)

[Anonymous No.2848588]

>basic math problem
>247 posts and 32 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848594]

>>2848588

>implying it's still a basic math problem and not some discussion about math definitions

[Anonymous No.2848600]

>Come back from class
>See this thread is still on page 1

Holy shit guys, it's not hard to see that there's two answers to this depending on how you approach the problem.

288fags are approaching the problem like this:
(48 / 2)(9 + 3)

2fags are approaching the problem like this:
48 / (2(9 + 3))

In both cases, you're adding in parentheses to justify your own method. You're right to those who share the same method as you, and wrong to those who share the opposite. Show's over, folks. How about discussing some shit a little more important than this elementary crap?

[Mat-fucker No.2848607]

Are u kidding or u rly thinking about it?

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848617]

>>2848600

I don't see how
48 / 2 * (9+3) <span class="math">= 48*2^{-1}*(9+3)[/spoiler]
is involving implied parenthesis

In fact, it's the correct use of division's definition and its reciprocal nature.

[Anonymous No.2848620]

>>2848562
Whatever the product of what's ontop of the bar is, divided by whatever the product of what's under it. You break from the fraction when there's a +/- not enclosed in parentheses. It's not sloppy, some would it's actually a better design. Fraction bars are a lot more useful than simple division, and it is a lot more similar to what we do when we write math.

>>2848574
misquote

[Anonymous No.2848622]

the answer is both 288 and 2. the answer exists in a quantum state, and the wavefunction only collapses when you plug the problem into a calculator. this explains the different answers.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848631]

>>2848620

That's what I'm talking about when I'm saying it's a sloppy and incorrect design.

You can't just make up imaginary brackets for one case and disregard them for the other. That makes it inconsistent and easy to be misinterpreted.

[Anonymous No.2848648]

in math: 48/2(9+3) = 2
in computers: 48/2(9+3) = 288

its not a hard concept... the "real" answer is 2 but this is because of an assumption of sorts, in the way we read, which a computer can not and should not understand

[Anonymous No.2848650]

>>2848617
÷ AND / DO NOT HAVE A UNIVERSAL DEFINITION.
IT CAN EITHER BE CONSIDERED AS A FRACTION BAR, OR SIMPLE DIVISION.

FUCK

[Anonymous No.2848652]

>>2848617

Take a more simple example:

4 / 2 * 3

Since the order in which you do multiplication or division truly doesn't matter, the most common way of doing this problem is left-to-right. However, mathematical law only states that multiplication and division are the same thing.

Most people say PEMDAS is mathematical law, but if you want to say THAT, the priority is more like this:

P
E
MD
AS

With letters on the same level meaning shared priority. Following this, the problem given above ALSO has two answers; 6 and 4/6. This is the difference between (4 / 2) * 3 and 4 / (2 * 3). From a pure mathematical standpoint, neither of these is the TRUE right answer.

[Anonymous No.2848656]

>>2848631
God you're an idiot.
There is no addition of parentheses WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON?

[Anonymous No.2848662]

>>2848652

tl;dr This "problem" has piss-poor notation due to lack of parentheses, which is why it isn't seen very often in classrooms.

[Anonymous No.2848671]

>>2848631
IT'S A DIFFERENT OPERATION THERE IS NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PARENTHESES

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848692]

>>2848650

If it's a fraction bar, then it has to apply to everything written beyond it.

>>2848652

Exactly, they're equal. That's why the indication of the division (to create an inverse multiplicant) has to stay solely with the value (or any higher operation than MD) behind it.

>>2848671

He said / works like a fraction bar but gets cancelled by a sum outside of a product.

Which means:

48/2(9+3)+12 = <span class="math">\frac{48}{2*(9+3)}+12[/spoiler]

It simply can't be a fraction bar this way. It's a definition with (assumed) parenthesis for products directly behind the fraction bar while sums aren't included.

>>2848656

There is indeed the addition of parenthesis to change the order of operations.

By simply forming / d to d^(-1) you gain equality of each multiplication/division. By applying this exponent to the whole 2nd multiplication, you're giving this multiplication a higher order than the division.

Again, the same thing as in 1-2+(8-3) != 1-(2+(8-3))

[Anonymous No.2848694]

>>2848662
that's because that notation is for inputs into a calculator, and different calculators interpret it differently.

[Anonymous No.2848721]

multiplication and division are given same priority in order of operations, if all you have is multiplication and division in a problem, you work left to right, so the correct order here is to evaluate 9+3, then 48/2, then to multiply.

[Anonymous No.2848727]

>>2848694

Yup yup. Some people read books left-to-right, others right-to-left. It's the same sort of thing with how the calculators would solve a problem like this.

[Anonymous No.2848733]

>>2848692
To specify that something like 4 + 5 needs to be divided or multiplied by something you have to enclose it in parentheses, that applies to every calculator.

(2)(2+2)/(2)(2+2)+2 = 3. If you consider / as a fraction bar. otherwise it's 18.
((2)(2+2))/((2)(2+2)) is 3 in both calculators.

which of those looks cleaner to you?

[Anonymous No.2848752]

>>2848721
You don't have to do multiplication and division left to right. 48 ÷ 2 * 12 = 48*6
because it's the same as 48 * (1/2) * 12.
You could also do it as 48 * 12 * (1/2)

The fact that people go through algebra and still think you have to follow an order between multiplication and division scares me.

[Anonymous No.2848767]

Hi, I'm a newcomer to this fine board and you've all just made a hundred page thread on a fucking algebra equation.

Ponder this and do what is necessary.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848784]

>>2848733

If you consider / as a fraction bar in the first example, the correct answer is <span class="math">\frac{1}{3}[/spoiler]

That's the whole point I'm getting at.
It may look 'cleaner' to you, but it's incorrect.

This problem occurs rather rarely in real life, but the fact that it still does due to people being unable to put proper parenthesis is just annoying.

[Anonymous No.2848793]

/sci/ at its finest moment.

[Anonymous No.2848811]

you got two? you realize that the fraction bars act as grouping symbols, therefore you multiply (48/2) * (9+3)

[Anonymous No.2848819]

Seriously, /sci/?

[Dynasty !onftRaZ/0k No.2848839]

48/2(9+3)?

[Anonymous No.2848862]

just wanted in on the greatest troll thread ever before 404

[Anonymous No.2848869]

288 will be the new meme

[Anonymous No.2848870]

>thread about order of operations
>which is middle school math
>275 posts and 35 image replies omitted
sci, i am dissapoint

[Anonymous No.2848873]

>>2847599

>which is it?

Yeah, that should've been the red flag right there....
Pic related, it's OP.

[Anonymous No.2848894]

>>2848784
you are an idiot in every sense of idiocy, you're fucking retarded, congratulations.

The beauty of this is that you interpreted it properly up to a point, then just derped really hard. There's no way to get 1/3.

8/(8+2) = 8/10 = 4/5
8/8 + 2 = 3.

[Anonymous No.2848902]

279 posts and 36 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

Posting in epic thread

[Anonymous No.2848913]

it is 2.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848914]

>>2848894

(2)(2+2)/(2)(2+2)+2
2 options:
(2)(2+2)/((2)(2+2)+2) = 1/3 : if you go for the approach that / is an ultimate fraction bar and anything beyond it gets included
(2)(2+2)/(2)(2+2)+2 = 18 : correct mathematical application, /(2) is just a mere 1/2 multiplicator

(2)(2+2)/(2)(2+2)+2 = 3 is equal to 2+(2)(2+2)/((2)(2+2))
Not only that it puts imaginary parenthesis where there aren't any (like the ultimate fraction bar) - no, it does so in an inconsistent manner.

Now get out.

[Anonymous No.2848915]

Think I will spread this to facebook.

captcha: rytrull still

[Anonymous No.2848917]

OP.
Do the fucking universe a favour and delete this thread.
This is the dumbest shit there ever was.

[Anonymous No.2848941]

>>2848914
x/(x+y) does not simplify to 1/(1+y)

the other things you're saying are so stupid it's hard to believe,
yes, obviously they made it a ULTIMATE FRACTION BAR THAT EVERYTHING THAT CANNOT BE ESCAPED

[Anonymous No.2848953]

>mfw this thread has this many posts
/sci/ is really full of retards isn't it?

[Anonymous No.2848955]

Summary:

Strictly speaking, 48÷2(9+3) actually means: (48/2)(9+3) = 288

It is NOT 48/2(9+3) = 2.

[Voodoo No.2848958]

48 * 1/2 * (9+3) =
48 * 1/2 * 12 =
288

Multiplication is distributive, there is no need for order of operations in ANY pure multiplication / division problem. So, once the addition is solved, there is no specific ORDER to perform these processes, only the correct method.

[Anonymous No.2848975]

>>2848914
Congratulations. You are 288th post in this thread. Click here to claim your prize.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848977]

>>2848941

You're right with the 4/5, seems like I'm just too tired already.
You wanted some options, one is a fraction bar that puts parenthesis on any function following it. It's just doing it horizontally instead of vertically. This is NOT mathematically correct without putting the parenthesis in there.
The other one is the correct mathematical application.

What YOU proposed though is just making up brackets wherever you want them. It's flawed, don't try to justify it.

[Anonymous No.2848982]

>>2848958
The issue is whether or not that 12 is actually (1/12).
Because the ÷ symbol can be interpreted in different ways because it's intended for use by calculators, and some consider it as a fraction bar rather than simple division.

[Anonymous No.2848986]

>>2848958

48*1/2*12

no need for order
48*1/24

just got 2

hmmmmm

[Anonymous No.2848987]

[Anonymous No.2848992]

This is arguing for arguings sake, aka maximum trolling.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2848993]

>>2848982

We've gone through this countless times:
Every other approach puts imaginary brackets in it to change the order of operations and disregards the distributive law this way.

Why would you do this?

[Anonymous No.2849004]

Whenever someone argues for the existance of God in the future I'll just link them an archived version of this thread.

[Voodoo No.2849008]

>>2848986
1/2 * 12 = 6

[Anonymous No.2849015]

I cannot believe you faggots.

[sage No.2849081]

sage
/sci/ is dead

[Anonymous No.2849103]

>>2848977
There is no need to add parentheses.
The fact is you use less parentheses with Casio's method. You don't need to put parentheses around the products above and below the /. You have to put parentheses around a sum if you want it to be part of a product. At heart it's one term divided by another term. It evaluates the top term, then the bottom term, then divides top by bottom. It won't do any addition in this process unless the addition is contained in parentheses, and part of either the top or bottom product.

When you physically write something like (4x+3)/(3x+2) you don't need to enclose 4x+3 and 3x+2 in parentheses because they're implicit by the bar. They are still there. Just like if you want to multiply 4x+3 by 3x+2 you'd enclose them with parentheses like (4x+3)(3x+2). However, a calculator must know that 4x+3 is supposed to be part of a product, and the way to do that is to enclose it in parentheses. This is the same for any calculator.

The casio does not add parentheses to things before and after the /. It evaluates the product of what is immediately before it, and the product of what is immediately after it. Any addition/subtraction not contained in parentheses would be escaping the /, and that is precisely because it does not add any extra parentheses.
There are no inconsistencies.

[Anonymous No.2849141]

>mfw this thread

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2849157]

>>2849103

>There are no inconsistencies.

The fact, that you leave sums that don't belong to a product out of the fraction.
Either the / works like a vertical fraction bar in horizontal position or not at all.

You're turning 4x*5y/6z*7a+9 into 4x*5y/(6z*7a)+9, which is utterly retarded.

Use it like a real fraction bar (and even this is utterly stupid) and get 4x*5y/(6z*7a+9) or don't interpret it as one at all.

Changing the order of operation to whatever you like is the dumbest shit I've read in a while.

[Anonymous No.2849178]

STOP REPEATING THE SAME GODDAMN IRRELEVANT SHIT ALREADY

the only god damn argument in this entire thread is whether multiplication by juxtaposition to parentheses (that is intentionally omitting the sign) should get priority over normal multiplication (dropping the operation sign instead of drawing additional brackets for efficiency)

or if it should be treated as normal multiplication

the later is the "correct" and non-ambiguous way but the former is consistently done by many people

this thread is not and never been about calculations its about fucking interpretations of meaning

[pred No.2849274]

sci is dumber then I thought

[Anonymous No.2849320]

>>2849157
1) There are implicit parentheses on the top and bottom of a fraction bar.
2) When writing, you imply it by the length of the bar.
3) Can't do that on a calculator.
4) Nonetheless, the calculator doesn't add magic parentheses or change any order of operation.
5) It multiplies together the top, and when it encounters the bottom, it handles every subsequent term by multiplying it by 1/whatever, when it encounters a +, it stops multiplying and adds.

fejakfleaj fuck it i give up, you're an idiot.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2849423]

>>2849320

Due to the impossibility of defining the implicit parentheses by the bar's length, you can't use this method.
Using those implicit parentheses solely for multiplications instead of including sums is the inconsistency I'm talking about. If you have to but brackets to include those sums learn to adapt to the proper system of putting brackets for EVERY additional operation in the fraction.

Conclusion: Using implicit parentheses for this just makes a mess out of the whole thing. Use the operations like they're intended and you won't run into people misunderstanding your equations.

Again, being lazy doesn't make it valid.

We don't encounter this problem in handwriting and properly done programs anyway due to the accessibility of horizontal bars.

[Anonymous No.2849583]

>>2849423
>Due to the impossibility of defining the implicit parentheses by the bar's length, you can't use this
method. Using those implicit parentheses solely for multiplications instead of including sums is the inconsistency I'm talking about.

IT'S NOT A GOD DAMN INCONSISTENCY IF YOU CAN DRAW THE BAR, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE PARENTHESES, THEY'RE IMPLIED, BUT IF YOU CAN'T DRAW THE BAR, YOU NEED THE PARENTHESES. THE PARENTHESES ARE THERE NO MATTER WHAT, WRITING OR IN A CALCULATOR.

WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS SO PROFOUNDLY STUPID. HOW THE FUCK DO YOU STILL NOT GET THIS?

LOOK
4/5+3 IF YOU WERE WRITING IT IT'D BE 1/2, BECAUSE 5+3 HAS IMPLICIT PARENTHESES THANKS TO THE BAR. I STILL DON'T THINK YOU'RE GETTING THIS, THE CALCULATOR DOES NOT ADD ANY PARENTHESES WHATSOEVER.
4/5+3 IS READ AS 4/5 + 3 = 19/5 BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T WRAPPED ANY PARENTHESES AROUND 5+3. NOTE, TO GET 1/2 ON EITHER CALCULATOR, YOU HAVE TO WRAP 5+3 WITH PARENTHESES.
THE ADVANTAGE OF THIS SYSTEM IS THE FOLLOWING.
SOMETHING LIKE 3(4+5) / 5(7) WOULD HAVE TO BE WRITTEN (3(4+5)) / (5(7)) IN A TI.
WHERE IT COULD JUST BE WRITTEN 3(4+5) / 5(7)
4 PARENTHESES VERSUS 8
THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY. YOU'RE A MORON.

[‮‬ !.OPIsFAG5Y No.2849709]

>>2849583

Again, based on what you showed me, you're stopping the implicit parentheses for the denominator when you encounter a sum not being included in the denominator's multiplication.
To get a denominator like 5*6+7, you'll still need to put it in bracket like 1/(5*6+7). You gain absolutely no advantage over the normal method there. The same counts for the numerator.
The only advantage this brings is that you don't need to put brackets around the primary multiplication in the denominator. BUT this also causes misunderstandings with people treating / equal with * due to the distributive law.

You'll never need to put additional brackets in the numerator anyway, no matter which method you use.

In the end you're fine with the appearance of misconceptions just because you're too goddamn lazy to type 2 FUCKING SYMBOLS?
What do you expect those people to do when they encounter your equation?
Assuming all kinds of implicit parentheses?

No. They will and should treat them without implications and deal with the shit that IS FUCKING THERE. And you should fucking clear the mess instead of picking your little piece of 'speciality'.

[Anonymous No.2849859]

the computer interprets the expression as
(48/2)(9+3)=288

to do it properly, put 48/(2(9+3))