48÷2(9+3)=?

DaMullet

New member
Nov 28, 2009
303
0
0
cookyy2k said:
DaMullet said:
So, how do you work out x/2(9+3)=288 and 48/x(9+3)=288?
Again these are implicit statements due to one line condencement.

Is it x/(2(9+3)) or (x/2)(9+3)? the brackets are required to make these explicit statements.
Why? Why isn't x treated just like a number? How is replacing a number with X suddenly break the whole thing?
 

cookyy2k

New member
Aug 14, 2009
799
0
0
DaMullet said:
cookyy2k said:
DaMullet said:
So, how do you work out x/2(9+3)=288 and 48/x(9+3)=288?
Again these are implicit statements due to one line condencement.

Is it x/(2(9+3)) or (x/2)(9+3)? the brackets are required to make these explicit statements.
Why? Why isn't x treated just like a number? How is replacing a number with X suddenly break the whole thing?
They were broken before... 24/2(9+3) is not a complete expression, it's not explicit. It could be written 24/(2(9+3)) or (24/2)(9+3) without loss of generality however these two expressions have different results.
 

DaMullet

New member
Nov 28, 2009
303
0
0
cookyy2k said:
DaMullet said:
cookyy2k said:
DaMullet said:
So, how do you work out x/2(9+3)=288 and 48/x(9+3)=288?
Again these are implicit statements due to one line condencement.

Is it x/(2(9+3)) or (x/2)(9+3)? the brackets are required to make these explicit statements.
Why? Why isn't x treated just like a number? How is replacing a number with X suddenly break the whole thing?
They were broken before... 24/2(9+3) is not a complete expression, it's not explicit. It could be written 24/(2(9+3)) or (24/2)(9+3) without loss of generality however these two expressions have different results.
Now, you've really lost me. How is 24/2*(9+3)=288 not a valid equation?
 

cookyy2k

New member
Aug 14, 2009
799
0
0
DaMullet said:
Now, you've really lost me. How is 24/2*(9+3)=288 not a valid equation?
The problem lies in the way the expression is written, it doesn't imply only one fexpression but 2 different ones as I've said earlier. I can solve 24/x(9+3)=288 2 ways...

48/x(9+3)=288
48/288=x(9+3)
48/(288(9+3))=x
x=4/288


OR

48/x(9+3)=288
48/x=288/(9+3)
x/48=12/288
x=(48*12)/288
x=2

Either is equally valid. 1st is 48/(x(9+3)), 2nd is (48/x)(9+3)=288

EDIT... just realised I keep using 24 instead of 48! Above change to rectify this...
 

DaMullet

New member
Nov 28, 2009
303
0
0
cookyy2k said:
DaMullet said:
Now, you've really lost me. How is 24/2*(9+3)=288 not a valid equation?
The problem lies in the way the expression is written, it doesn't imply only one fexpression but 2 different ones as I've said earlier. I can solve 24/x(9+3)=288 2 ways...

48/x(9+3)=288
48/288=x(9+3)
48/(288(9+3))=x
x=4/288


OR

48/x(9+3)=288
48/x=288/(9+3)
x/48=12/288
x=(48*12)/288
x=2

Either is equally valid. 1st is 48/(x(9+3)), 2nd is (48/x)(9+3)=288

EDIT... just realised I keep using 24 instead of 48! Above change to rectify this...
But no, I dissagree, they can't both be valid because they give different answers.
The beautiful thing about math is 1=1.

My way

48/x(9+3)=288
48/12x=288
48=3456x
x=0.0138888888888889

or

48/x(9+3)=2
48/12x=2
48=24x
x=2

Now

x/2(9+3)=2
x/24=2
x=48

See, here's my problem. I do it my way, or the way I was taught at least, and I keep getting the right answer no matter what I do. You're way can be done inncorrectly which strikes me as REALLY strange.

My way, I don't have to add brackets anywhere, at all, and the answer still works and there is only one solution; 48/2(9+3) = 2.

What's the point in BEDMAS if you have to add brackets to make algebra work?

EDIT

Wait a minute... how can you change 24 to 48 in the same equation and get the same answer???? WTF?
 

cookyy2k

New member
Aug 14, 2009
799
0
0
DaMullet said:
cookyy2k said:
DaMullet said:
Now, you've really lost me. How is 24/2*(9+3)=288 not a valid equation?
The problem lies in the way the expression is written, it doesn't imply only one fexpression but 2 different ones as I've said earlier. I can solve 24/x(9+3)=288 2 ways...

48/x(9+3)=288
48/288=x(9+3)
48/(288(9+3))=x
x=4/288


OR

48/x(9+3)=288
48/x=288/(9+3)
x/48=12/288
x=(48*12)/288
x=2

Either is equally valid. 1st is 48/(x(9+3)), 2nd is (48/x)(9+3)=288

EDIT... just realised I keep using 24 instead of 48! Above change to rectify this...
But no, I dissagree, they can't both be valid because they give different answers.
The beautiful thing about math is 1=1.

My way

48/x(9+3)=288
48/12x=288
48=3456x
x=0.0138888888888889

or

48/x(9+3)=2
48/12x=2
48=24x
x=2

Now

x/2(9+3)=2
x/24=2
x=48

See, here's my problem. I do it my way, or the way I was taught at least, and I keep getting the right answer no matter what I do. You're way can be done inncorrectly which strikes me as REALLY strange.

My way, I don't have to add brackets anywhere, at all, and the answer still works and there is only one solution; 48/2(9+3) = 2.

What's the point in BEDMAS if you have to add brackets to make algebra work?
I'm adding brackets to remove the ambiguity in this. the problem being in one line computer text I can't write it out fully so i'm using brackets to show which on the earlier examples I made I'm using. The thing is both my ways are mathematically valid.

x/2(9+3)=2
x/2=2/(9+3)
x=4/12

nothing mathematically wrong with what I just did, it's all to do with how the expresion is written.
 

DaMullet

New member
Nov 28, 2009
303
0
0
cookyy2k said:
DaMullet said:
cookyy2k said:
DaMullet said:
Now, you've really lost me. How is 24/2*(9+3)=288 not a valid equation?
The problem lies in the way the expression is written, it doesn't imply only one fexpression but 2 different ones as I've said earlier. I can solve 24/x(9+3)=288 2 ways...

48/x(9+3)=288
48/288=x(9+3)
48/(288(9+3))=x
x=4/288


OR

48/x(9+3)=288
48/x=288/(9+3)
x/48=12/288
x=(48*12)/288
x=2

Either is equally valid. 1st is 48/(x(9+3)), 2nd is (48/x)(9+3)=288

EDIT... just realised I keep using 24 instead of 48! Above change to rectify this...
But no, I dissagree, they can't both be valid because they give different answers.
The beautiful thing about math is 1=1.

My way

48/x(9+3)=288
48/12x=288
48=3456x
x=0.0138888888888889

or

48/x(9+3)=2
48/12x=2
48=24x
x=2

Now

x/2(9+3)=2
x/24=2
x=48

See, here's my problem. I do it my way, or the way I was taught at least, and I keep getting the right answer no matter what I do. You're way can be done inncorrectly which strikes me as REALLY strange.

My way, I don't have to add brackets anywhere, at all, and the answer still works and there is only one solution; 48/2(9+3) = 2.

What's the point in BEDMAS if you have to add brackets to make algebra work?
I'm adding brackets to remove the ambiguity in this. the problem being in one line computer text I can't write it out fully so i'm using brackets to show which on the earlier examples I made I'm using. The thing is both my ways are mathematically valid.

x/2(9+3)=2
x/2=2/(9+3)
x=4/12

nothing mathematically wrong with what I just did, it's all to do with how the expresion is written.
Yes there is something mathimatically wrong with the way you do it because you have TWO ANSWERS

48/x(9+3)=288
48/288=x(9+3)
48/(288(9+3))=x
x=4/288

OR

48/x(9+3)=288
48/x=288/(9+3)
x/48=12/288
x=(48*12)/288
x=2

So, can you prove that your way is right and solve this?

Please show your work
48/(4/288)(9+3)=288
 

cookyy2k

New member
Aug 14, 2009
799
0
0
DaMullet said:
Yes there is something mathimatically wrong with the way you do it because you have TWO ANSWERS

48/x(9+3)=288
48/288=x(9+3)
48/(288(9+3))=x
x=4/288

OR

48/x(9+3)=288
48/x=288/(9+3)
x/48=12/288
x=(48*12)/288
x=2

So, can you prove that your way is right and solve this?

Please show your work
48/(4/288)(9+3)=288
The problem here isn't mathematical... It's to do with ambiguity in the expression. I'm not saying one answer is right since the expression is flawed. the one you've written at the bottom can be interpreted two different ways. the expression 48/2(9+3) can be thought of as



Depending on how you read it. As you will see my working in the above post will work in one but not the other as yours will. I'm not saying anything you've said is wrong, just that it's not a unique solution. This is the problem here the lack of any unique solution.
 

DaMullet

New member
Nov 28, 2009
303
0
0
cookyy2k said:
The problem here isn't mathematical... It's to do with ambiguity in the expression. I'm not saying one answer is right since the expression is flawed. the one you've written at the bottom can be interpreted two different ways. the expression 48/2(9+3) can be thought of as



Depending on how you read it. As you will see my working in the above post will work in one but not the other as yours will. I'm not saying anything you've said is wrong, just that it's not a unique solution. This is the problem here the lack of any unique solution.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH... Light bulb.


Fasinating.

And I did 48/(4/288)(9+3) and it does equal 288. Weird.

I can see how math people can do this all day! :D
 

cookyy2k

New member
Aug 14, 2009
799
0
0
DaMullet said:
cookyy2k said:
The problem here isn't mathematical... It's to do with ambiguity in the expression. I'm not saying one answer is right since the expression is flawed. the one you've written at the bottom can be interpreted two different ways. the expression 48/2(9+3) can be thought of as



Depending on how you read it. As you will see my working in the above post will work in one but not the other as yours will. I'm not saying anything you've said is wrong, just that it's not a unique solution. This is the problem here the lack of any unique solution.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH... Light bulb.


Fasinating.

And I did 48/(4/288)(9+3) and it does equal 288. Weird.

I can see how math people can do this all day! :D
Yeah this is what I was trying to get across all along. It's just because it's written on one line so is open to different ways of reading it. Once you write it as you would by hand or in a scientific paper it's unambiguous and has one answer only.
 

DaMullet

New member
Nov 28, 2009
303
0
0
cookyy2k said:
Yeah this is what I was trying to get across all along. It's just because it's written on one line so is open to different ways of reading it. Once you write it as you would by hand or in a scientific paper it's unambiguous and has one answer only.
Heh, where's a chalk board when you need one eh?

Cheers mate!
 

cookyy2k

New member
Aug 14, 2009
799
0
0
DaMullet said:
cookyy2k said:
Yeah this is what I was trying to get across all along. It's just because it's written on one line so is open to different ways of reading it. Once you write it as you would by hand or in a scientific paper it's unambiguous and has one answer only.
Heh, where's a chalk board when you need one eh?

Cheers mate!
Is all good, good maths debate is always worth the 4.15am bed time :p

Just glad I could finally get what I was saying across, image worth a thousand words and all.
 

DaMullet

New member
Nov 28, 2009
303
0
0
cookyy2k said:
DaMullet said:
cookyy2k said:
Yeah this is what I was trying to get across all along. It's just because it's written on one line so is open to different ways of reading it. Once you write it as you would by hand or in a scientific paper it's unambiguous and has one answer only.
Heh, where's a chalk board when you need one eh?

Cheers mate!
Is all good, good maths debate is always worth the 4.15am bed time :p

Just glad I could finally get what I was saying across, image worth a thousand words and all.
Ew... I'm so sorry! :(

*mails you a cookie*
 

cookyy2k

New member
Aug 14, 2009
799
0
0
DaMullet said:
cookyy2k said:
DaMullet said:
cookyy2k said:
Yeah this is what I was trying to get across all along. It's just because it's written on one line so is open to different ways of reading it. Once you write it as you would by hand or in a scientific paper it's unambiguous and has one answer only.
Heh, where's a chalk board when you need one eh?

Cheers mate!
Is all good, good maths debate is always worth the 4.15am bed time :p

Just glad I could finally get what I was saying across, image worth a thousand words and all.
Ew... I'm so sorry! :(

*mails you a cookie*
Twas actually sinscere to be honest. I enjoy this sort of thing. Worked out terribly in school and well in real life :p
 

Titan Buttons

New member
Apr 13, 2011
678
0
0
MercurySteam said:
My calculator is a Casio fx-82AU and it clearly says "Scientific Calculator" on the front. They're given out by our school for use from years 8-12 and are approved by the Board of Studies to use in all exams. Trust me when I say that this calculator is the correct one to work an equation out with.

Besides, I showed you how I did it on paper with the working so the calculator is irrelevant.
Is that the way your actually taught at school because my teacher where quite clear to me that the way you did it on paper was wrong
 

Titan Buttons

New member
Apr 13, 2011
678
0
0
Jewrean said:
YES! See how much more interesting that question is than some silly trollish order of operations question? Yay!
lol yeah true but just don't start using pie in your questions I can not find my calculator
 

Titan Buttons

New member
Apr 13, 2011
678
0
0
Wuggy said:
Titan Buttons said:
right to left does not count when using Brackets, they just go 1st no exceptions
Did I claim otherwise? No. The question was not about wether or not brackets go first.
Sorry my bad I miss read what you wrote. But I still believe you are wrong in regaurds to (48÷2)*(9+3)
Yes the question 48÷2(9+3) has two terms but they are "48÷" and "2(9+3)" not "48÷2" and "9+3"
One must complete a term before adding, subtracting, dividing or multipling it to another term. Therefore 2(9+3) has to be done before anything can divided 48
 

TiefBlau

New member
Apr 16, 2009
904
0
0
theklng said:
this equation has already been resolved as ambiguous.
Well, someone's changing his tune.

Where's all that professional programmer conviction that the answer was 2?
theklng said:
i took the liberty of finding the a source related to this, explaining why it has been deemed as ambiguous:

I?m a math professor, and my view is that although the standard convention, if applied precisely and rigorously, does give an unambiguous procedure to follow, nobody, and that includes professional mathematicians, would ever write a formula like this. This is mostly because, after about 3rd grade, none of us ever use the division symbol ever again.
from: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/gyrmq/6212_reaaaaal
A) I believe he's a math professor like I believe you're a programmer.
B) He says the exact opposite of what you're saying. He just said that this equation gives us an unambiguous procedure to follow.
theklng said:
or in the case you don't believe that, here's a comparison between the two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFKGbU6ARQg
Hm. Interesting. You see, I took the liberty of actually going to that site he's on, Mathway, and I put in 48÷2(9+3) exactly, and you know what I got? 288. You can go check if you're not sure.
theklng said:
oh and: obviously even if i did do arithmetic errors in my code, it'd be fixed way before any sort of release due to this thing called testing.
As if I needed any more proof that you obviously aren't a programmer.

That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone claiming to be a programmer say.
theklng said:
and even if an arithmetic fault would slip through that,given that i'm not in the medicinal or third party medicinal business, what i do isn't exactly living up to your hyperbole.
Of course it isn't. That's why it's a hyperbole.

You'd still be out of a job pretty quickly though.
 

ACman

New member
Apr 21, 2011
629
0
0
There's nothing in the laws of algebra that say you must proceed from left to right.

I think with the lack of symbol the 2(9 + 3) is one term and should be distributed first.

IMO.
 

theklng

New member
May 1, 2008
1,229
0
0
TiefBlau said:
theklng said:
this equation has already been resolved as ambiguous.
Well, someone's changing his tune.

Where's all that professional programmer conviction that the answer was 2?
theklng said:
i took the liberty of finding the a source related to this, explaining why it has been deemed as ambiguous:

I?m a math professor, and my view is that although the standard convention, if applied precisely and rigorously, does give an unambiguous procedure to follow, nobody, and that includes professional mathematicians, would ever write a formula like this. This is mostly because, after about 3rd grade, none of us ever use the division symbol ever again.
from: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/gyrmq/6212_reaaaaal
A) I believe he's a math professor like I believe you're a programmer.
B) He says the exact opposite of what you're saying. He just said that this equation gives us an unambiguous procedure to follow.
theklng said:
or in the case you don't believe that, here's a comparison between the two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFKGbU6ARQg
Hm. Interesting. You see, I took the liberty of actually going to that site he's on, Mathway, and I put in 48÷2(9+3) exactly, and you know what I got? 288. You can go check if you're not sure.
theklng said:
oh and: obviously even if i did do arithmetic errors in my code, it'd be fixed way before any sort of release due to this thing called testing.
As if I needed any more proof that you obviously aren't a programmer.

That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone claiming to be a programmer say.
theklng said:
and even if an arithmetic fault would slip through that,given that i'm not in the medicinal or third party medicinal business, what i do isn't exactly living up to your hyperbole.
Of course it isn't. That's why it's a hyperbole.

You'd still be out of a job pretty quickly though.
i'm starting to think you're deliberately being an idiot here. what the professor said was that the equation gives off an ambiguity because of the ÷ symbol, which he states is also why it isn't used anymore. setting up the equation with the dash-division sign is a much easier way of showing unambiguous statements.

as far as i am concerned this topic was over right then and there. i'm not sure why you keep persisting as if there was something personal at stake, and if there is, it's none of my business. now please, go back to your highschool class.