Mago
Austrian Blech Machine
but I also see it this way
Can remember about AB = A*B, and if there's no () around the dominator then it's a seperate thing.
48/2(9+3) = ???
- Thread starter Morgan C
- Start date
but I also see it this way
Can remember about AB = A*B, and if there's no () around the dominator then it's a seperate thing.
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
The one and only difference here is that the 2 crowd tries to convince the 288 crowd that apart from a real set of unimaginary parentheses, we also have a second set of imaginary parentheses created by that romantic, intimate, very close relationship between the number 2 and the 9+3 inside the bracket...
That would make it 48/(2(9+3))=2
But... imaginary, nonexistant, simply not there.
They probably think:
"Oh ah oh look at how close that 2 and the bracket are !
There is no room for even a small * sign !
They must love each other so much !
Oh look they made a little baby 24 even before that old division on the left side could come into effect !"
If the author of that equation used one set of brackets, it is logical that he would use the other set too if solution 2 was his intention instead of solution 288.
That would make it 48/(2(9+3))=2
But... imaginary, nonexistant, simply not there.
They probably think:
"Oh ah oh look at how close that 2 and the bracket are !
There is no room for even a small * sign !
They must love each other so much !
Oh look they made a little baby 24 even before that old division on the left side could come into effect !"
If the author of that equation used one set of brackets, it is logical that he would use the other set too if solution 2 was his intention instead of solution 288.
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
if no order is apparent from formatting, all calculations should be performed as a string of sub-calculations in the following order:
brackets trump everything
*
/
+
-
so the answer should be calculated as follows:
9+3 = 12
2*12 = 24
48/24 = 2
or at least that's how i had it drummed in to me.
brackets trump everything
*
/
+
-
so the answer should be calculated as follows:
9+3 = 12
2*12 = 24
48/24 = 2
or at least that's how i had it drummed in to me.
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
LePou
Member
ParsonsMatt
Alas, Tyranny
I think to be quite honest, any serious mathematician would agree that this is simply a matter of formatting/interpretation and not a matter of correct/incorrect maths. Therefore your very aggressive and dogmatic arguments are kinda redundant - there isn't really a wrong or right here.
One could even go as far as to say that 48/2(9+3) isn't a correct mathematical expression and therefore the argument is completely redundant. Like others have said, if one were to come across this expression in an exam or in a line of work, they'd be completely justified in interpreting it either way and continuing as such. It would be the author of the equation who would be at fault.
inb4"U got trololed!"
edit: having said this, i guess there must be a formally correct way to do it. i wonder which body has the authority to declare what order one would carry out badly formatted operations in hahah? i assume it's not an intrinsically defined mathematical property, as it's not really a mathematical problem. like i said in my previous post, i assume it's just up to each programmer to define how they want to receive that string of characters.
Skinny Viking
¯\(°_o)/¯ How do Lydian?
Skinny Viking
¯\(°_o)/¯ How do Lydian?
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
Me ? Very aggressive ?
I never said anyone here is retarded or booger picking and eating whatever
If the equation is understood by professional math software, it should be understood by people too.
IDK... maybe it is how different countries teach these things...
I was never taught about that mnemonic aunt Sally.
It was always just that division and multiplication are equal because they are really one:
2/(2/1)=1
2*(1/2)=1
I had an informatics class in elementary school too, maybe thats why for me the / sign only acts on what is on its left and right sides and on nothing more.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skinny Viking
¯\(°_o)/¯ How do Lydian?
Me ? Very aggressive ?
I never said anyone here is retarded or booger picking and eating whatever
If the equation is understood by professional math software, it should be understood by people too.
IDK... maybe it is how different countries teach these things...
I was never taught about that mnemonic aunt Sally.
It was always just that division and multiplication are equal because they are really one:
2/(2/1)=1
2*(1/2)=1
I had an informatics class in elementary school too, maybe thats why for me the / sign only acts on what is on its left and right sides and on nothing more.
I felt like your posts were coming across as pretty aggressive, apologies if I misunderstood.
The point about mathematical software is the point I'm trying to make; different professional software interprets that equation differently, giving us no real standard.
@skinny viking, sorry but MATHS ;D also, boobs.
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
GarethSE
New Metal Member
- Jul 5, 2008
- 7,595
- 1
- 0
- 33
Weird, someone posted the exact same question on another forum.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.275879-Poll-What-is-the-answer-to-48-2-9-3
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.275879-Poll-What-is-the-answer-to-48-2-9-3
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
SimonTaddio_Qc
Headbanger
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
My last post (today) on this very funny and entertaining thread.
In mathematics there is no such thing as interpreting what the author of an equation had in mind, there is only calculating what he wrote.
Look at this one, it has these imaginary parentheses around 1+2 and 2+3 that tell us what actions we have to take first:
(1+2)
(2+3)
And i think everyone here will agree that it means (1+2)/(2+3)=0.6 because if we convert it to this format the imaginary parentheses MUST turn to real ones.
If there were no real parentheses around 1+2 and 2+3 it would look stupid like this:
1+2/2+3=5
So if we have this cleared... do we ??? LOL
And if we KNOW that there is no such thing as "2X" "close relations" having a higher priority in algebra than multiplication/division left to right side rule...
Then...
48/2(9+3) will look like this when converted to the other format:
48
-- (9+3)=288
2
And as division is only multiplication by reciprocal, we can also do it without that confusing / sign like this:
48*0.5(9+3)=288
>>>Inside<<< of parentheses, multiplication, multiplication.
Remember: look at the equation as it is written, don't try to come up with what its author had in mind, don't try to imagine things.
In mathematics there is no such thing as interpreting what the author of an equation had in mind, there is only calculating what he wrote.
Look at this one, it has these imaginary parentheses around 1+2 and 2+3 that tell us what actions we have to take first:
(1+2)
(2+3)
And i think everyone here will agree that it means (1+2)/(2+3)=0.6 because if we convert it to this format the imaginary parentheses MUST turn to real ones.
If there were no real parentheses around 1+2 and 2+3 it would look stupid like this:
1+2/2+3=5
So if we have this cleared... do we ??? LOL
And if we KNOW that there is no such thing as "2X" "close relations" having a higher priority in algebra than multiplication/division left to right side rule...
Then...
48/2(9+3) will look like this when converted to the other format:
48
-- (9+3)=288
2
And as division is only multiplication by reciprocal, we can also do it without that confusing / sign like this:
48*0.5(9+3)=288
>>>Inside<<< of parentheses, multiplication, multiplication.
Remember: look at the equation as it is written, don't try to come up with what its author had in mind, don't try to imagine things.
Similar threads
