Solve this equation > 48÷2(9+3) = ?

15681011108

Comments

  • VioletSummersVioletSummers Posts: 1,363
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    John259 wrote: »
    I have. What's inside the brackets is 9 + 3 which is 12.

    No. I don't know where you're getting that from but it isn't right. There is no such rule.

    If you had 48/2x(9+3) I could understand why you would calculate it as you had, but the lack of multiplication sign next to the bracket means that the 2 is affixed to it and therefore should be timsed before the 48 even comes into it because of BODMAS.
  • 5th Horseman5th Horseman Posts: 10,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AlphaK wrote: »
    which would give

    48 ÷ 2*9 + 2*3 = neither 288 or 2

    But that's still short form is the sum:

    a) 2

    48
    ---
    18 + 6

    or

    b) 8.66 (recurring)

    48
    --- + 6
    18

    Of course I would go with b but unless written in long form it still leaves some potential ambiguity.
  • danletodanleto Posts: 2,777
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's 288.
  • AlphaKAlphaK Posts: 3,733
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But that's still short form is the sum:

    a) 2

    48
    ---
    18 + 6

    or

    b) 8.66 (recurring)

    48
    --- + 6
    18

    Of course I would go with b but unless written in long form it still leaves some potential ambiguity.

    I was just messing as I believe the answer is 2
    Although as I wrote it there could be a third version

    48
    --- *9 + 2*3 = 24 * 9 + 2*3 = 216 + 6 = 222
    2
  • Keiō LineKeiō Line Posts: 12,979
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    danleto wrote: »
    It's 288.

    no its "2". for the reasons outlined by other posters.
  • *weeschmoo**weeschmoo* Posts: 9,713
    Forum Member
    No No!!

    I keep looking at this thread and I know every time I come in it'll still be:

    It's 2

    no it's 288

    I just can't stand it!! I want to know what the right answer is.. Stamps feet.

    can we not just ask the person who made all these things up? For some reason this is driving me nuts.:D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,279
    Forum Member
    Maybe older posters who were taught in school to do it from left to right are getting 288, whereas those younger like myself, who were taught the bodmas method are getting 2?
    Well, I'm an older poster by any measure :D and I get 2. Looking at it, the 2 is adjacent to the bracketed value, so it goes with it.

    How would those who get 288 do this:

    48÷2(x+y) ?

    Or this:

    48 divided by 2(9+3) (which is what it says, verbatim, in the OP)?

    To rationalise to 288, it would read (48÷2)(9+3).
  • John259John259 Posts: 28,319
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    the lack of multiplication sign next to the bracket means that the 2 is affixed to it and therefore should be timsed before the 48 even comes into it because of BODMAS.
    No, sorry but you are wrong about that. BODMAS does not say that.

    BODMAS says calculate what is inside brackets first. Then powers. Then division and multiplication equally working left to right. Finally addition and subtraction equally working left to right.

    2(9+3) is calculated in exactly the same way as 2 x (9+3) in every sense. Whether the multiplication sign is there or not has absolutely no effect. It is very poor notation to omit the multiplication sign when using a number before the bracket but it doesn't change how it should be calculated.
  • VioletSummersVioletSummers Posts: 1,363
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    To the above poster, I'm going to try something

    So we've established that it varies by opinion, but what is 48÷2x(9+3)? Does your answer change?
  • EllieGEllieG Posts: 108,065
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    :D debate still underway ... seems calculators can come up with different views too!!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 193
    Forum Member
    Did this in school for GCSE's and I'm currently redoing this with Open Uni for maths degree.

    Writing it like this:2(9+3) is a short hand version of writing it like this: (2x9)+(2x3). Putting the 2 immediately next to the brackets is algebraic short hand for multiplying the contents of the brackets by the 2. It does not mean whack a multiplication sign in there and then work it out.

    The ONLY way to get 288 is if there was a multiplication sign after the 2 which there isn't .

    Those who think this is wrong, the solution is quite simple - put the equation into a scientific calculator verbatim and the answer is 2. End of story.
  • muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ok - can I change camp - I no long say it is 288. In the strictest alegbraic sense.

    x=48/2n
    n=(9+3)

    Therefore x=48/24
    x=2

    However, back in the real world, pretty much all software would assume the answer to be 288. Since I write applications to report numbers for a living I have to go with 288 for the real world.

    Therefore the answer is either, depending if you deal in abstract or if you deal in reality.

    Can we have this third option added to the poll ;)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 109
    Forum Member
    48÷2(9+3) - in this equation the answer is 2. You do the brackets first - getting (2x12) which is 24. 48/24 is 2.

    (48÷2)(9+3) - in this equation the answer is 288. You do the brackets first and so get 24 x 12=288.
  • VioletSummersVioletSummers Posts: 1,363
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Did this in school for GCSE's and I'm currently redoing this with Open Uni for maths degree.

    Writing it like this:2(9+3) is a short hand version of writing it like this: (2x9)+(2x3). Putting the 2 immediately next to the brackets is algebraic short hand for multiplying the contents of the brackets by the 2. It does not mean whack a multiplication sign in there and then work it out.

    The ONLY way to get 288 is if there was a multiplication sign after the 2 which there isn't .

    Those who think this is wrong, the solution is quite simple - put the equation into a scientific calculator verbatim and the answer is 2. End of story.

    This this this!
    Much better than how I tried to explain it.
  • AlphaKAlphaK Posts: 3,733
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    To the above poster, I'm going to try something

    So we've established that it varies by opinion, but what is 48÷2x(9+3)? Does your answer change?

    It does as far as I am concerned 48÷2(9+3) = 2

    and 48÷2x(9+3) = 288
  • muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Did this in school for GCSE's and I'm currently redoing this with Open Uni for maths degree.

    Writing it like this:2(9+3) is a short hand version of writing it like this: (2x9)+(2x3). Putting the 2 immediately next to the brackets is algebraic short hand for multiplying the contents of the brackets by the 2. It does not mean whack a multiplication sign in there and then work it out.

    The ONLY way to get 288 is if there was a multiplication sign after the 2 which there isn't .

    Those who think this is wrong, the solution is quite simple - put the equation into a scientific calculator verbatim and the answer is 2. End of story.
    Actually, even scientifc calculators can come up with different answers :eek::D
  • John259John259 Posts: 28,319
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    To the above poster, I'm going to try something

    So we've established that it varies by opinion, but what is 48÷2x(9+3)? Does your answer change?
    There is no "opinion" on this amongst mathematicians. There is one unambgious standard and that gives a result of 288.

    48÷2x(9+3)
    =48÷2x12
    =24x12
    =288

    Whether the multiplication sign is present, or absent and implied by juxtaposition, has absolutely no effect, ever.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 823
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    if it's (48÷2)(9+3) its 288

    if it's 48÷2(9+3) it's 2

    THE answer is 42

    probably
  • VioletSummersVioletSummers Posts: 1,363
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AlphaK wrote: »
    It does as far as I am concerned 48÷2(9+3) = 2

    and 48÷2x(9+3) = 288

    You see, that's what I think - that's why I think that the lack of multiplication symbol is the significant factor here. If people work it out as if there isn't one there, they get 2, whereas if they add in the multiplication sign in their head, they'll get 288.

    My theory, anyway:p
  • hustedhusted Posts: 5,287
    Forum Member
    John259 wrote: »
    There is no "opinion" on this amongst mathematicians. There is one unambgious standard and that gives a result of 288.

    48÷2x(9+3)
    =48÷2x12
    =24x12
    =288

    Whether the multiplication sign is present, or absent and implied by juxtaposition, has absolutely no effect, ever.

    Your mistake is on the first line. Its 2 multiplied by 9 AND 2 muliplied by 3.

    Always do the sum inside the Brackets first. BODMAS.
  • kingofcakeskingofcakes Posts: 2,948
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    This makes my head hurt.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 193
    Forum Member
    OMFG!!!

    The very fact that there is no sign between the 2 and the brackets means that the 2 belongs to the brackets.

    People need to realise that BODMAS/BIDMAS is not the only mathematical theory going on here. There is also algebra to think of.

    EDIT (less confusing explanation)

    There is no multiplication sign to be put between the 2 and the brackets. 2(9+3) does not mean 2 x (9+3). It means (2x9)+(2x3). Anyone who has successfully studied algebra will know this.
  • AlphaKAlphaK Posts: 3,733
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    Ok - can I change camp - I no long say it is 288. In the strictest alegbraic sense.

    x=48/2n
    n=(9+3)

    Therefore x=48/24
    x=2

    Using substitution into an algebraic expression appears to give a different answer to using actual values because the ambiguity is removed.

    Edited to add - appears to give
  • hustedhusted Posts: 5,287
    Forum Member
    OMFG!!!

    The whole reason the multiplication sign is there is because it comes immediately before the bracket. The very fact that there is no sign between the 2 and the brackets means that the 2 belongs to the brackets.

    People need to realise that BODMAS/BIDMAS is not the only mathematical theory going on here. There is also algebra to think of.

    There is no algebra here. Algebra is the concept of variables representing numbers. If there was an 'x' there it would be:

    2x(9+3) = 18x + 6x = 24x.

    When you are evaluating an expression, BODMAS is the convention even in algebra. Brackets first.

    All you have is a multiplication symbol:

    2x(9+3) = 2(9+3) = 18+6 = 24.

    Brackets first. Always.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 193
    Forum Member
    husted wrote: »
    There is no algebra here. Algebra is the concept of variables representing numbers. If there was an 'x' there it would be:

    2x(9+3) = 18x + 6x = 24x.

    When you are evaluating an expression, BODMAS is the convention even in algebra. Brackets first.

    All you have is a multiplication symbol:

    2x(9+3) = 2(9+3) = 18+6 = 24.

    Brackets first. Always.

    First off, check my edited post, I changed a point.

    What I'm trying to say here is the 2(9+3) does not mean 2x(9+3) in the conventional sense. It means 2 lots of (9+3) It's the multiplication sign thats causing all the confusion.
Sign In or Register to comment.