[Flufan]

Originally Posted by Special K_

Okay then, as it stands right now, it's 288.

Only according to p% of the votes, where

p = (48÷2*(9+3))/100+40

(because happily, as I write, the 288ers have 42.88% in the poll).

And, just for clarity, 42.88<57.12

Not that DS polls mean anything, of course.

[Candy Store]

Originally Posted by D.M.N.

Which is right?

By the way the equation is written it's 2.

[ForestChav]

Originally Posted by Candy Store

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.

[ForestChav]

http://i53.tinypic.com/2jb4qjd.jpg <-- winnar

[JS477]

Originally Posted by Special K_

Okay then, as it stands right now, it's 288.

Which is the answer.

[tealady]

Originally Posted by ACU

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?

[ForestChav]

Exactly as in the first post, my other three scientific calculators get 2. With the * put in, they all get 288.

[Keiō Line]

Originally Posted by cartree

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.

[ForestChav]

Originally Posted by Keiō Line

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.

[lemonbun]

Originally Posted by ForestChav

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.

[ForestChav]

Originally Posted by lemonbun

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).

[lemonbun]

Originally Posted by ForestChav

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 Line]

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...=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-...to-48%C3%B7293 !!!!!!

,,,,wait, no it isn't

what's a gagwoman?

[Doctor_Wibble]

Originally Posted by Keiō Line

what's a gagwoman?

Maybe a strange translation of comedienne?

[Keiō Line]

Originally Posted by Doctor_Wibble

Maybe a strange translation of comedienne?

Perhaps she said "2" for a laugh?

[Gneiss]

Originally Posted by lemonbun

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.

[ForestChav]

Originally Posted by Gneiss

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.]

My TI-83 gives 288 for 48/2(9+3).

[Baldrick Phd]

Originally Posted by ForestChav

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

[ForestChav]

Originally Posted by Mark.

My TI-83 gives 288 for 48/2(9+3).

Quite, so even the calculators don't agree.

[Mark.]

Originally Posted by ForestChav

Quite, so even the calculators don't agree.

Yea, but (to continue along similar lines that Pamela suggested)...my calculator's bigger than yours

[ForestChav]

Originally Posted by Mark.

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_Wibble]

Originally Posted by ForestChav

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...?

[Gneiss]

Originally Posted by ForestChav

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.

Originally Posted by Doctor_Wibble

And IIRC the links a few pages back showed different models of TI calcs say different things anyway...?

Yes that was quite funny...

[lemonbun]

Originally Posted by Gneiss

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.)