Keep in mind
48÷2(9+3)
is not the same as
__48__
2(9+3)
Silly geese. Y ever1 so silly.
48÷2(9+3)
is not the same as
__48__
2(9+3)
Silly geese. Y ever1 so silly.
Poll
48÷2(9+3) = ??
| 288 | 43% | 43% - 40 | ||||
| 2 | 56% | 56% - 51 | ||||
| Total: 91 | ||||||
I tend to side with this. The notation seems a bit ambiguous. Parentheses should be used at all times when there is a question of order of operations.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Adams_BJ wrote:
There is no right answer because the equation is set out incorrectly.
The person who wrote this problem is a master troll. 6 pages of presidents being trolled.
This was debated on The Escapist too. I got the answer 288.
Brackets first, (9+3=12,) then exponents, (none,) then multiplication and division working left to right, (48 divided by 2 = 24 then 24x12=288,) and finally addition and subtraction working left to right, (none.) 288.
However this equasion does have some ambiguity and if it's written, (or perceived,) in a different form then the answer can be 2. Written as 48 divided by 2(9+3) the answer is 288. Written as 48/2(9+3) - when it's 48 over 2 and not 48 divided by 2 - the answer is 2.
Both answers are correct.
Brackets first, (9+3=12,) then exponents, (none,) then multiplication and division working left to right, (48 divided by 2 = 24 then 24x12=288,) and finally addition and subtraction working left to right, (none.) 288.
However this equasion does have some ambiguity and if it's written, (or perceived,) in a different form then the answer can be 2. Written as 48 divided by 2(9+3) the answer is 288. Written as 48/2(9+3) - when it's 48 over 2 and not 48 divided by 2 - the answer is 2.
Both answers are correct.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
48÷2(9+3)
48÷2(12)
24(12)
288
Pemdas
48÷2(12)
24(12)
288
Pemdas
and i thought literature was ambiguous
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
It might be my own disuse of the myriad rules of notation, but to my recollection there is no set standard regarding the precedence of implied multiplication over notated. While some math books claim that it does, others do not, and some use it without mentioning it at all. My last troll answer seems to confirm 288, so I'm going to have to side with that until I have a chance to look into it deeper. If I didn't already vote null, that's where my answer would be.
It's really more matter of ambiguous rules than of intelligence.
It's really more matter of ambiguous rules than of intelligence.
Didn't you know? Science is set in stone.Uzique wrote:
and i thought literature was ambiguous
fuck, you can post "the sky is blue" and this forum would argue it to death . . .Uzique wrote:
and i thought literature was ambiguous
this reallyburnzz wrote:
fuck, you can post "the sky is blue" and this forum would argue it to death . . .Uzique wrote:
and i thought literature was ambiguous
no but i know it's fuckin boringunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Didn't you know? Science is set in stone.
how can you guys argue whether it's two numbers for 8 pages, but then contemplating the meaning of a shakespearean metaphor annoys you
we're doomed
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Strangely, I found this thread more fascinating than sitting in class discussing the various cruelties of Miss Havisham.
its 288 as its written
dunno what there is to quibble about
edit: that division sign is simply poor notation though
dunno what there is to quibble about
edit: that division sign is simply poor notation though
Last edited by Bevo (2011-04-08 18:48:23)
because you have no friends
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Yes but is the "blue" that you see, the same as the "blue" that I see...burnzz wrote:
fuck, you can post "the sky is blue" and this forum would argue it to death . . .Uzique wrote:
and i thought literature was ambiguous
Or the same as the blue in your lovely landscape pics
ban
i got 2 ;P
2 what? smilies mixed up...Shadow893 wrote:
i got 2 ;P
2882 is the answer
I interpreted the expression given in the OP as the following
everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously. ♥
math isn't. people are just stupid.Uzique wrote:
and i thought literature was ambiguous
i could've sworn this was in D&ST.
It's 288
48÷2(9+3)
48 ÷ 2 x 12 =
24 x 12 =
288
Using pemdas that's how it would be done.
You do whats in parenthesis first, then for the multiplication and division you do in ORDER from first to last. Neither multiplication nor division is first. Just in order from first to last.
48÷2(9+3)
48 ÷ 2 x 12 =
24 x 12 =
288
Using pemdas that's how it would be done.
You do whats in parenthesis first, then for the multiplication and division you do in ORDER from first to last. Neither multiplication nor division is first. Just in order from first to last.
Last edited by NeXuS (2011-04-08 19:49:36)
Uzique wrote:
and i thought literature was ambiguous
Oh for fuck's sake!burnzz wrote:
fuck, you can post "the sky is blue" and this forum would argue it to death . . .
Again with the Blue Sky Theory bullshit.
Really, now.
Looking at it right now. Sky is overcast, gray, cloudy.
those are the clouds ya lousy presidentrdx-fx wrote:
Uzique wrote:
and i thought literature was ambiguousOh for fuck's sake!burnzz wrote:
fuck, you can post "the sky is blue" and this forum would argue it to death . . .
Again with the Blue Sky Theory bullshit.
Really, now.
Looking at it right now. Sky is overcast, gray, cloudy.
Because you're on a video game forum and the vast majority of us are math nerds that don't give a crap about Shakespearean metaphors.Uzique wrote:
no but i know it's fuckin boringunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Didn't you know? Science is set in stone.
how can you guys argue whether it's two numbers for 8 pages, but then contemplating the meaning of a shakespearean metaphor annoys you
we're doomed
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I give a shit about Shakespearean metaphors.
It's black for merdx-fx wrote:
Uzique wrote:
and i thought literature was ambiguousOh for fuck's sake!burnzz wrote:
fuck, you can post "the sky is blue" and this forum would argue it to death . . .
Again with the Blue Sky Theory bullshit.
Really, now.
Looking at it right now. Sky is overcast, gray, cloudy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat