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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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.)
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...
Comments
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.
Which is the answer.
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.
Like my calculators then...
Guess they're not the same. :cool:
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.
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.
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?
Perhaps she said "2" for a laugh?
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.
So explain why inserting 48/2(9+3) into 4 calculators gives 2, when inserting 48/2*(9+3) gives 288?
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
Quite, so even the calculators don't agree.
It's about the only thing which is
I don't suppose for one second they thought that anyone would make any assumptions from that.
Yes that was quite funny...
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.)
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...