Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Solve this equation > 482(9+3) = ?


View Poll Results: Which is right?
2 663 55.76%
288 526 44.24%
Voters: 1189. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in?

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13-04-2011, 20:48
Flufan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,064
Okay then, as it stands right now, it's 288.
Only according to p% of the votes, where

p = (482*(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.
Flufan is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 13-04-2011, 20:49
Candy Store
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brighton
Posts: 4,721
Which is right?
By the way the equation is written it's 2.
Candy Store is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 20:57
ForestChav
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nottingham -You lost the game!
Posts: 31,674
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 21:07
ForestChav
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nottingham -You lost the game!
Posts: 31,674
http://i53.tinypic.com/2jb4qjd.jpg <-- winnar
ForestChav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 21:09
JS477
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,445
Okay then, as it stands right now, it's 288.
Which is the answer.
JS477 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 21:15
tealady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: colchester
Posts: 10,540
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?
tealady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 21:28
ForestChav
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nottingham -You lost the game!
Posts: 31,674
Exactly as in the first post, my other three scientific calculators get 2. With the * put in, they all get 288.
ForestChav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 21:34
Keiō Line
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,483
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.
Keiō Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 21:34
ForestChav
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nottingham -You lost the game!
Posts: 31,674
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.
ForestChav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 21:39
lemonbun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,340
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.
lemonbun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 21:42
ForestChav
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nottingham -You lost the game!
Posts: 31,674
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).
ForestChav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 21:42
lemonbun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,340
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.
lemonbun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 21:46
Keiō Line
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,483
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...=488334&page=8
50:50 split.

Solved
by singer/gagwoman Kwak Hyun Hwa, whos also a mathematics graduate from the prestigious Ewha Womens University,

http://www.allkpop.com/2011/04/kwak-...to-48%C3%B7293 !!!!!!

,,,,wait, no it isn't

what's a gagwoman?
Keiō Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 21:54
Doctor_Wibble
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,909
what's a gagwoman?
Maybe a strange translation of comedienne?
Doctor_Wibble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 21:59
Keiō Line
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,483
Maybe a strange translation of comedienne?
Perhaps she said "2" for a laugh?
Keiō Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 22:15
Gneiss
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 13,960
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

(482)x(9+3) = (48/2)x(9+3) = (482)*(9+3) = (48/2)*(9+3) = (482)(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! Its simply done in an attempt to support a flawed argument.
Gneiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 22:24
ForestChav
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nottingham -You lost the game!
Posts: 31,674
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

(482)x(9+3) = (48/2)x(9+3) = (482)*(9+3) = (48/2)*(9+3) = (482)(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! Its 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?
ForestChav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 22:27
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 46,489
My TI-83 gives 288 for 48/2(9+3).
Mark. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 22:29
Baldrick Phd
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TYNESIDE
Posts: 18,091
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
Baldrick Phd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 22:29
ForestChav
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nottingham -You lost the game!
Posts: 31,674
My TI-83 gives 288 for 48/2(9+3).
Quite, so even the calculators don't agree.
ForestChav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 22:32
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 46,489
Quite, so even the calculators don't agree.
Yea, but (to continue along similar lines that Pamela suggested)...my calculator's bigger than yours
Mark. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 22:35
ForestChav
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nottingham -You lost the game!
Posts: 31,674
Yea, but (to continue along similar lines that Pamela suggested)...my calculator's bigger than yours
It's about the only thing which is
ForestChav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 22:39
Doctor_Wibble
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,909
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...?
Doctor_Wibble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 22:50
Gneiss
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 13,960
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...
Gneiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2011, 22:55
lemonbun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,340
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

(482)x(9+3) = (48/2)x(9+3) = (482)*(9+3) = (48/2)*(9+3) = (482)(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! Its 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.)
lemonbun is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:24.