Solve this equation > 48÷2(9+3) = ?

15556586061108

Comments

  • Candy StoreCandy Store Posts: 5,125
    Forum Member
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    Which is right?
    By the way the equation is written it's 2.
  • ForestChavForestChav Posts: 35,127
    Forum Member
    By the way the equation is written it's 2.

    As soon as I can find four AAAs (I worked it out, but the battery was low and the display was a bit dim) I'll show that if you enter just that into my calculator, I get 2.
  • ForestChavForestChav Posts: 35,127
    Forum Member
  • JS477JS477 Posts: 1,489
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Special K_ wrote: »
    Okay then, as it stands right now, it's 288.

    Which is the answer.
  • tealadytealady Posts: 26,262
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ACU wrote: »
    There is no ambiguity if you follow the rules laid down. This kind of scenario must have been first encountered centuries ago. From what your saying, no one has thought about laying down some rules...which if you think about it is absurd.
    If there is no ambiguity, why do Excel, python, sql+, ms foxpro all flag it up as an error requiring correction?
  • ForestChavForestChav Posts: 35,127
    Forum Member
    Exactly as in the first post, my other three scientific calculators get 2. With the * put in, they all get 288.
  • Keiō LineKeiō Line Posts: 12,979
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    cartree wrote: »
    Erm... I kinda really hate to do this to you, but...

    http://www3.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F2%289%2B3%29
    Regard has been made to this in the first thew pages of the thread.

    I find it out that wolfram gave a diffrent answer with

    1/2x and 1/2*x. almost as if they were not the same.
  • ForestChavForestChav Posts: 35,127
    Forum Member
    Keiō Line wrote: »
    Regard has been made to this.

    I find it out that wolfram gave a diffrent answer with

    1/2x and 1/2*x. almost as of they were not the same.

    Like my calculators then...

    Guess they're not the same. :cool:
  • lemonbunlemonbun Posts: 5,371
    Forum Member
    ForestChav wrote: »
    Exactly as in the first post, my other three scientific calculators get 2. With the * put in, they all get 288.

    Many have pointed this out but to no avail.. Adding * to 2(9+3) changes the expression/equation. Using actual numbers does not change the algebra.
    x * (z + y) is not the same as x(z +y) when used in an expression/equation.
  • ForestChavForestChav Posts: 35,127
    Forum Member
    lemonbun wrote: »
    Many have pointed this out but to no avail.. Adding * to 2(9+3) changes the expression/equation. Using actual numbers does not change the algebra.
    x * (z + y) is not the same as x(z +y)

    Which is precisely the view I subscribe to. The way it is laid out is implicitly associating the 2 with the brackets, logically extending this the 2 should be processed as though it is part of the brackets.

    2(9+3) is a factorised shorthand of (2.9+2.3).
  • lemonbunlemonbun Posts: 5,371
    Forum Member
    ForestChav wrote: »
    Which is precisely the view I subscribe to. The way it is laid out is implicitly associating the 2 with the brackets, logically extending this the 2 should be processed as though it is part of the brackets.

    2(9+3) is a factorised shorthand of (2.9+2.3).

    Totally agree.
  • Keiō LineKeiō Line Posts: 12,979
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=488334&page=8
    50:50 split.

    Solved
    by singer/gagwoman Kwak Hyun Hwa, who’s also a mathematics graduate from the prestigious Ewha Women’s University,

    http://www.allkpop.com/2011/04/kwak-hyun-hwa-reveals-the-answer-to-48%C3%B7293 !!!!!!

    ,,,,wait, no it isn't:(

    what's a gagwoman?
  • Doctor_WibbleDoctor_Wibble Posts: 26,580
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Keiō Line wrote: »
    what's a gagwoman?
    Maybe a strange translation of comedienne?
  • Keiō LineKeiō Line Posts: 12,979
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Maybe a strange translation of comedienne?

    Perhaps she said "2" for a laugh?
  • GneissGneiss Posts: 14,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lemonbun wrote: »
    Many have pointed this out but to no avail.. Adding * to 2(9+3) changes the expression/equation. Using actual numbers does not change the algebra.
    x * (z + y) is not the same as x(z +y) when used in an expression/equation.

    Mainly because they are totally wrong… Are these not equations?

    48÷(2x(9+3) = 48/(2x(9+3) = 48÷(2*(9+3) = 48/(2*(9+3) = 48÷(2(9+3) = 48/(2(9+3) = 2

    (48÷2)x(9+3) = (48/2)x(9+3) = (48÷2)*(9+3) = (48/2)*(9+3) = (48÷2)(9+3) = (48/2)(9+3) = 288

    The only relevant factor here is the ORDER of operations!

    The symbol used for the operators have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on their function, and I find it difficult to believe anyone can seriously be suggesting otherwise! It’s simply done in an attempt to support a flawed argument.
  • ForestChavForestChav Posts: 35,127
    Forum Member
    Gneiss wrote: »
    Mainly because they are totally wrong… Are these not equations?

    48÷(2x(9+3) = 48/(2x(9+3) = 48÷(2*(9+3) = 48/(2*(9+3) = 48÷(2(9+3) = 48/(2(9+3) = 2

    (48÷2)x(9+3) = (48/2)x(9+3) = (48÷2)*(9+3) = (48/2)*(9+3) = (48÷2)(9+3) = (48/2)(9+3) = 288

    The only relevant factor here is the ORDER of operations!

    The symbol used for the operators has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on its function, and I find it difficult to believe anyone can seriously be suggesting otherwise! It’s simply done in an attempt to support a flawed argument.

    So explain why inserting 48/2(9+3) into 4 calculators gives 2, when inserting 48/2*(9+3) gives 288?
  • Mark.Mark. Posts: 84,804
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    My TI-83 gives 288 for 48/2(9+3).
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,825
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ForestChav wrote: »
    Which is precisely the view I subscribe to. The way it is laid out is implicitly associating the 2 with the brackets, logically extending this the 2 should be processed as though it is part of the brackets.

    2(9+3) is a factorised shorthand of (2.9+2.3).

    Exactly. Like I said pages ago the 2 has to be taken as part of the bracket removing process to give the 24 to divide into the 48 giving your answer of 2
  • ForestChavForestChav Posts: 35,127
    Forum Member
    Mark. wrote: »
    My TI-83 gives 288 for 48/2(9+3).

    Quite, so even the calculators don't agree.
  • Mark.Mark. Posts: 84,804
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ForestChav wrote: »
    Quite, so even the calculators don't agree.
    Yea, but (to continue along similar lines that Pamela suggested)...my calculator's bigger than yours ;)
  • ForestChavForestChav Posts: 35,127
    Forum Member
    Mark. wrote: »
    Yea, but (to continue along similar lines that Pamela suggested)...my calculator's bigger than yours ;)

    It's about the only thing which is ;)
  • Doctor_WibbleDoctor_Wibble Posts: 26,580
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ForestChav wrote: »
    Quite, so even the calculators don't agree.
    And IIRC the links a few pages back showed different models of TI calcs say different things anyway...?
  • GneissGneiss Posts: 14,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ForestChav wrote: »
    So explain why inserting 48/2(9+3) into 4 calculators gives 2, when inserting 48/2*(9+3) gives 288?
    Because that's the syntax they happened to choose... Google gives 288 whichever way you enter it for the same reason.

    I don't suppose for one second they thought that anyone would make any assumptions from that.
    And IIRC the links a few pages back showed different models of TI calcs say different things anyway...?

    Yes that was quite funny...
  • lemonbunlemonbun Posts: 5,371
    Forum Member
    Gneiss wrote: »
    Mainly because they are totally wrong… Are these not equations?

    48÷(2x(9+3) = 48/(2x(9+3) = 48÷(2*(9+3) = 48/(2*(9+3) = 48÷(2(9+3) = 48/(2(9+3) = 2

    (48÷2)x(9+3) = (48/2)x(9+3) = (48÷2)*(9+3) = (48/2)*(9+3) = (48÷2)(9+3) = (48/2)(9+3) = 288

    The only relevant factor here is the ORDER of operations!

    The symbol used for the operators have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on their function, and I find it difficult to believe anyone can seriously be suggesting otherwise! It’s simply done in an attempt to support a flawed argument.
    How many times - stop putting * or x signs where they are not stated.
    Y(b + c) = (Yb + Yc)
    Y times (b + c) = Y * (b +c) = Y x (b +c)
    The * or times sign means that the Y never goes inside the bracket, Y next to a bracket without an other operator means that the Y is part of the bracket (e.g. it is a factorial, etc.)
  • ForestChavForestChav Posts: 35,127
    Forum Member
    Gneiss wrote: »
    Because that's the syntax they happened to choose... Google gives 288 whichever way you enter it for the same reason.

    I don't suppose for one second they thought that anyone would make any assumptions from that.



    Yes that was quite funny...

    Quite, so even the people processing calculator logic can't agree.

    I think the only thing we can agree is really that the question is ambiguous and can be assumed two ways, one gives 2, the other 288. Neither is more correct, it just depends which assumption you make.

    Though I can see the reasons for those getting 288, I won't agree that it's anything but 2 for the reasons I said...
Sign In or Register to comment.