48÷2(9+3)=?

[DaMullet]

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]

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]

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!

 

[cookyy2k]

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!

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]

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]

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

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

 

[DaMullet]

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

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]

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

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

 

[Titan Buttons]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Cerdog]

Some people's understanding of BIDMAS is shocking. When you take care of brackets, you do everything INSIDE the brackets. You don't expand them, you don't distribute them, you just do everything inside them. So you get:

48÷2(9+3) = 48÷2(12)

2(12) is EXACTLY THE SAME as 2x12. The brackets, at this point, are irrelevant. For people trying to subsitute x = 12 here, it doesn't work, as implied multiplication is a) ambiguous and b) works differently for variables.

Actually, I want to double check my work.

48/2(9+x)=2
48/(18+2x)=2
48=2(18+2x)
48=36+4x
48-36=4x
4x=12
x=3

Yup, still works.

/thread

No. You are completely missing the point of what everyone is saying. Even if you ignore the different rules for variables and constants, your maths is incorrect. Let's look at the first line:

48/2(9+x)=2

What you have done is distributed the 2 into the brackets. THIS IS INCORRECT. As this is multiplication, and not "part of the brackets", you have to do division and multiplication from left to right, as they have equal precedence. So rather than:

48/(18+2x)=2

you should have:

24(9+x)=2
216+24x = 2
24x = -214
x = -8.917

Which is not 3, obviously.

Despite your algebraic method, you are still falling for the trap that so many others are falling for, which is to assume that the 2 is part of the brackets, which is WRONG. Algebra does not make your answer more valid, especially when the core idea of the method, which happens to be what people have been trying to tell you is wrong, is completely overlooked.

So you're trying to tell me that


.........AC
A ÷ BC = --
.........B

No.

If it were

A ÷ B * C

I might agree.

I'm not sure what you meant to write here, but I can guess. It's kind of tricky, as rules seem slightly different for variables, but I would hazard a guess at yes. It's ambiguous either way, although the original question is much less so.

Some people's understanding of BIDMAS is shocking. When you take care of brackets, you do everything INSIDE the brackets. You don't expand them, you don't distribute them, you just do everything inside them. So you get:

48÷2(9+3) = 48÷2(12)

2(12) is EXACTLY THE SAME as 2x12. The brackets, at this point, are irrelevant. For people trying to subsitute x = 12 here, it doesn't work, as implied multiplication is a) ambiguous and b) works differently for variables.

Actually, I want to double check my work.

48/2(9+x)=2
48/(18+2x)=2
48=2(18+2x)
48=36+4x
48-36=4x
4x=12
x=3

Yup, still works.

/thread

No. You are completely missing the point of what everyone is saying. Even if you ignore the different rules for variables and constants, your maths is incorrect. Let's look at the first line:

48/2(9+x)=2

What you have done is distributed the 2 into the brackets. THIS IS INCORRECT. As this is multiplication, and not "part of the brackets", you have to do division and multiplication from left to right, as they have equal precedence. So rather than:

48/(18+2x)=2

you should have:

24(9+x)=2
216+24x = 2
24x = -214
x = -8.917

Which is not 3, obviously.

Despite your algebraic method, you are still falling for the trap that so many others are falling for, which is to assume that the 2 is part of the brackets, which is WRONG. Algebra does not make your answer more valid, especially when the core idea of the method, which happens to be what people have been trying to tell you is wrong, is completely overlooked.

So what you're saying is that expanding brackets doesn't work...right? Because I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying.

48/2(9+x)=2

Yes, when you have multiplication and division you read it left to right. But brackets trumps all. Why? Because that is the whole point of brackets. So you do solve the brackets first. And when you have a pronumeral in the brackets (WHICH INCLUDES THE COEFFICIENT) what do you do? You expand.

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

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

See, everytime I solved the brackets first. And I got 2 as the final result to OPs question. Because brackets comes before division and multiplication, and so when you have brackets like that you cannot read left to right.

With fractions you do not read left to right, or top to bottom - you solve whatever comes first.

You too are completely missing the point. The coefficient is not "part of the brackets". The coefficient is just multiplication. That's it. It doesn't get priority because it's "attached" to the brackets, it's just more multiplication. The coefficient here is 48/2, because the division is written first.

Also, in BIDMAS, or BEMDAS, or whatever you want to call it, the B does not mean "get rid of the brackets". It does not mean "expand the brackets". It means "solve everything inside the brackets". That's not an opinion, or ambiguous, that's just what it means.

 

[Cerdog]

No. You are completely missing the point of what everyone is saying. Even if you ignore the different rules for variables and constants, your maths is incorrect. Let's look at the first line:

48/2(9+x)=2

What you have done is distributed the 2 into the brackets. THIS IS INCORRECT. As this is multiplication, and not "part of the brackets", you have to do division and multiplication from left to right, as they have equal precedence. So rather than:

48/(18+2x)=2

you should have:

24(9+x)=2
216+24x = 2
24x = -214
x = -8.917

Which is not 3, obviously.

Despite your algebraic method, you are still falling for the trap that so many others are falling for, which is to assume that the 2 is part of the brackets, which is WRONG. Algebra does not make your answer more valid, especially when the core idea of the method, which happens to be what people have been trying to tell you is wrong, is completely overlooked.

So... let's do it your way then

48/2(9+x)=288
24(9+x)=288
216+24x=288
24x=72
x=3

........... UH...............

Interesting. No wonder this is a debate.

Alright, so what's the difference between 2(1+1) and 2*(1+1)?

and if they're not, why write it like that? Cause now I'm curious

They mean the same thing. You would write it as the first one because it's shorter, but there is no real difference between the two.

 

[ACman]

Some people's understanding of BIDMAS is shocking. When you take care of brackets, you do everything INSIDE the brackets. You don't expand them, you don't distribute them, you just do everything inside them. So you get:

48÷2(9+3) = 48÷2(12)

2(12) is EXACTLY THE SAME as 2x12. The brackets, at this point, are irrelevant. For people trying to subsitute x = 12 here, it doesn't work, as implied multiplication is a) ambiguous and b) works differently for variables.

Actually, I want to double check my work.

48/2(9+x)=2
48/(18+2x)=2
48=2(18+2x)
48=36+4x
48-36=4x
4x=12
x=3

Yup, still works.

/thread

No. You are completely missing the point of what everyone is saying. Even if you ignore the different rules for variables and constants, your maths is incorrect. Let's look at the first line:

48/2(9+x)=2

What you have done is distributed the 2 into the brackets. THIS IS INCORRECT. As this is multiplication, and not "part of the brackets", you have to do division and multiplication from left to right, as they have equal precedence. So rather than:

48/(18+2x)=2

you should have:

24(9+x)=2
216+24x = 2
24x = -214
x = -8.917

Which is not 3, obviously.

Despite your algebraic method, you are still falling for the trap that so many others are falling for, which is to assume that the 2 is part of the brackets, which is WRONG. Algebra does not make your answer more valid, especially when the core idea of the method, which happens to be what people have been trying to tell you is wrong, is completely overlooked.

So you're trying to tell me that


.........AC
A ÷ BC = --
.........B

No.

If it were

A ÷ B * C

I might agree.

I'm not sure what you meant to write here, but I can guess. It's kind of tricky, as rules seem slightly different for variables, but I would hazard a guess at yes. It's ambiguous either way, although the original question is much less so.

Some people's understanding of BIDMAS is shocking. When you take care of brackets, you do everything INSIDE the brackets. You don't expand them, you don't distribute them, you just do everything inside them. So you get:

48÷2(9+3) = 48÷2(12)

2(12) is EXACTLY THE SAME as 2x12. The brackets, at this point, are irrelevant. For people trying to subsitute x = 12 here, it doesn't work, as implied multiplication is a) ambiguous and b) works differently for variables.

Actually, I want to double check my work.

48/2(9+x)=2
48/(18+2x)=2
48=2(18+2x)
48=36+4x
48-36=4x
4x=12
x=3

Yup, still works.

/thread

No. You are completely missing the point of what everyone is saying. Even if you ignore the different rules for variables and constants, your maths is incorrect. Let's look at the first line:

48/2(9+x)=2

What you have done is distributed the 2 into the brackets. THIS IS INCORRECT. As this is multiplication, and not "part of the brackets", you have to do division and multiplication from left to right, as they have equal precedence. So rather than:

48/(18+2x)=2

you should have:

24(9+x)=2
216+24x = 2
24x = -214
x = -8.917

Which is not 3, obviously.

Despite your algebraic method, you are still falling for the trap that so many others are falling for, which is to assume that the 2 is part of the brackets, which is WRONG. Algebra does not make your answer more valid, especially when the core idea of the method, which happens to be what people have been trying to tell you is wrong, is completely overlooked.

So what you're saying is that expanding brackets doesn't work...right? Because I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying.

48/2(9+x)=2

Yes, when you have multiplication and division you read it left to right. But brackets trumps all. Why? Because that is the whole point of brackets. So you do solve the brackets first. And when you have a pronumeral in the brackets (WHICH INCLUDES THE COEFFICIENT) what do you do? You expand.

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

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

See, everytime I solved the brackets first. And I got 2 as the final result to OPs question. Because brackets comes before division and multiplication, and so when you have brackets like that you cannot read left to right.

With fractions you do not read left to right, or top to bottom - you solve whatever comes first.

You too are completely missing the point. The coefficient is not "part of the brackets". The coefficient is just multiplication. That's it. It doesn't get priority because it's "attached" to the brackets, it's just more multiplication. The coefficient here is 48/2, because the division is written first.

Also, in BIDMAS, or BEMDAS, or whatever you want to call it, the B does not mean "get rid of the brackets". It does not mean "expand the brackets". It means "solve everything inside the brackets". That's not an opinion, or ambiguous, that's just what it means.

There is nothing in the Axioms of algebra that says anything about Bodmas, pemdas or whatever.

Order of ops is important for kids. Important for computers (And even in programming it seems to be applied patchily with distributivity being applied before and after on the TI-85 and the TI-86 respectively).

Pemdas is not relevent when doing algebra.

I'm not sure most would agree that

A ÷ BD

does not equal

AD ÷ B

There should be brackets after the division symbol but I think the distribution of the 2 into the brackets is implied here.

I lean towards the answer being 2 but I would accept 288.

 

[Cerdog]

Some people's understanding of BIDMAS is shocking. When you take care of brackets, you do everything INSIDE the brackets. You don't expand them, you don't distribute them, you just do everything inside them. So you get:

48÷2(9+3) = 48÷2(12)

2(12) is EXACTLY THE SAME as 2x12. The brackets, at this point, are irrelevant. For people trying to subsitute x = 12 here, it doesn't work, as implied multiplication is a) ambiguous and b) works differently for variables.

Actually, I want to double check my work.

48/2(9+x)=2
48/(18+2x)=2
48=2(18+2x)
48=36+4x
48-36=4x
4x=12
x=3

Yup, still works.

/thread

No. You are completely missing the point of what everyone is saying. Even if you ignore the different rules for variables and constants, your maths is incorrect. Let's look at the first line:

48/2(9+x)=2

What you have done is distributed the 2 into the brackets. THIS IS INCORRECT. As this is multiplication, and not "part of the brackets", you have to do division and multiplication from left to right, as they have equal precedence. So rather than:

48/(18+2x)=2

you should have:

24(9+x)=2
216+24x = 2
24x = -214
x = -8.917

Which is not 3, obviously.

Despite your algebraic method, you are still falling for the trap that so many others are falling for, which is to assume that the 2 is part of the brackets, which is WRONG. Algebra does not make your answer more valid, especially when the core idea of the method, which happens to be what people have been trying to tell you is wrong, is completely overlooked.

So you're trying to tell me that


.........AC
A ÷ BC = --
.........B

No.

If it were

A ÷ B * C

I might agree.

I'm not sure what you meant to write here, but I can guess. It's kind of tricky, as rules seem slightly different for variables, but I would hazard a guess at yes. It's ambiguous either way, although the original question is much less so.

Some people's understanding of BIDMAS is shocking. When you take care of brackets, you do everything INSIDE the brackets. You don't expand them, you don't distribute them, you just do everything inside them. So you get:

48÷2(9+3) = 48÷2(12)

2(12) is EXACTLY THE SAME as 2x12. The brackets, at this point, are irrelevant. For people trying to subsitute x = 12 here, it doesn't work, as implied multiplication is a) ambiguous and b) works differently for variables.

Actually, I want to double check my work.

48/2(9+x)=2
48/(18+2x)=2
48=2(18+2x)
48=36+4x
48-36=4x
4x=12
x=3

Yup, still works.

/thread

No. You are completely missing the point of what everyone is saying. Even if you ignore the different rules for variables and constants, your maths is incorrect. Let's look at the first line:

48/2(9+x)=2

What you have done is distributed the 2 into the brackets. THIS IS INCORRECT. As this is multiplication, and not "part of the brackets", you have to do division and multiplication from left to right, as they have equal precedence. So rather than:

48/(18+2x)=2

you should have:

24(9+x)=2
216+24x = 2
24x = -214
x = -8.917

Which is not 3, obviously.

Despite your algebraic method, you are still falling for the trap that so many others are falling for, which is to assume that the 2 is part of the brackets, which is WRONG. Algebra does not make your answer more valid, especially when the core idea of the method, which happens to be what people have been trying to tell you is wrong, is completely overlooked.

So what you're saying is that expanding brackets doesn't work...right? Because I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying.

48/2(9+x)=2

Yes, when you have multiplication and division you read it left to right. But brackets trumps all. Why? Because that is the whole point of brackets. So you do solve the brackets first. And when you have a pronumeral in the brackets (WHICH INCLUDES THE COEFFICIENT) what do you do? You expand.

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

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

See, everytime I solved the brackets first. And I got 2 as the final result to OPs question. Because brackets comes before division and multiplication, and so when you have brackets like that you cannot read left to right.

With fractions you do not read left to right, or top to bottom - you solve whatever comes first.

You too are completely missing the point. The coefficient is not "part of the brackets". The coefficient is just multiplication. That's it. It doesn't get priority because it's "attached" to the brackets, it's just more multiplication. The coefficient here is 48/2, because the division is written first.

Also, in BIDMAS, or BEMDAS, or whatever you want to call it, the B does not mean "get rid of the brackets". It does not mean "expand the brackets". It means "solve everything inside the brackets". That's not an opinion, or ambiguous, that's just what it means.

There is nothing in the Axioms of algebra that says anything about Bodmas, pemdas or whatever.

Order of ops is important for kids. Important for computers (And even in programming it seems to be applied patchily with distributivity being applied before and after on the TI-85 and the TI-86 respectively).

Pemdas is not relevent when doing algebra.

I'm not sure most would agree that

A ÷ BD

does not equal

AD ÷ B

There should be brackets after the division symbol but I think the distribution of the 2 into the brackets is implied here.

I lean towards the answer being 2 but I would accept 288.

Why is the distribution implied? It's just multiplication. With symbols or letters it is less clear, but when you have numbers, there is no reason to assume that the multiplication takes preference.

 

[ACman]

Some people's understanding of BIDMAS is shocking. When you take care of brackets, you do everything INSIDE the brackets. You don't expand them, you don't distribute them, you just do everything inside them. So you get:

48÷2(9+3) = 48÷2(12)

2(12) is EXACTLY THE SAME as 2x12. The brackets, at this point, are irrelevant. For people trying to subsitute x = 12 here, it doesn't work, as implied multiplication is a) ambiguous and b) works differently for variables.

Actually, I want to double check my work.

48/2(9+x)=2
48/(18+2x)=2
48=2(18+2x)
48=36+4x
48-36=4x
4x=12
x=3

Yup, still works.

/thread

No. You are completely missing the point of what everyone is saying. Even if you ignore the different rules for variables and constants, your maths is incorrect. Let's look at the first line:

48/2(9+x)=2

What you have done is distributed the 2 into the brackets. THIS IS INCORRECT. As this is multiplication, and not "part of the brackets", you have to do division and multiplication from left to right, as they have equal precedence. So rather than:

48/(18+2x)=2

you should have:

24(9+x)=2
216+24x = 2
24x = -214
x = -8.917

Which is not 3, obviously.

Despite your algebraic method, you are still falling for the trap that so many others are falling for, which is to assume that the 2 is part of the brackets, which is WRONG. Algebra does not make your answer more valid, especially when the core idea of the method, which happens to be what people have been trying to tell you is wrong, is completely overlooked.

So you're trying to tell me that


.........AC
A ÷ BC = --
.........B

No.

If it were

A ÷ B * C

I might agree.

I'm not sure what you meant to write here, but I can guess. It's kind of tricky, as rules seem slightly different for variables, but I would hazard a guess at yes. It's ambiguous either way, although the original question is much less so.

Some people's understanding of BIDMAS is shocking. When you take care of brackets, you do everything INSIDE the brackets. You don't expand them, you don't distribute them, you just do everything inside them. So you get:

48÷2(9+3) = 48÷2(12)

2(12) is EXACTLY THE SAME as 2x12. The brackets, at this point, are irrelevant. For people trying to subsitute x = 12 here, it doesn't work, as implied multiplication is a) ambiguous and b) works differently for variables.

Actually, I want to double check my work.

48/2(9+x)=2
48/(18+2x)=2
48=2(18+2x)
48=36+4x
48-36=4x
4x=12
x=3

Yup, still works.

/thread

No. You are completely missing the point of what everyone is saying. Even if you ignore the different rules for variables and constants, your maths is incorrect. Let's look at the first line:

48/2(9+x)=2

What you have done is distributed the 2 into the brackets. THIS IS INCORRECT. As this is multiplication, and not "part of the brackets", you have to do division and multiplication from left to right, as they have equal precedence. So rather than:

48/(18+2x)=2

you should have:

24(9+x)=2
216+24x = 2
24x = -214
x = -8.917

Which is not 3, obviously.

Despite your algebraic method, you are still falling for the trap that so many others are falling for, which is to assume that the 2 is part of the brackets, which is WRONG. Algebra does not make your answer more valid, especially when the core idea of the method, which happens to be what people have been trying to tell you is wrong, is completely overlooked.

So what you're saying is that expanding brackets doesn't work...right? Because I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying.

48/2(9+x)=2

Yes, when you have multiplication and division you read it left to right. But brackets trumps all. Why? Because that is the whole point of brackets. So you do solve the brackets first. And when you have a pronumeral in the brackets (WHICH INCLUDES THE COEFFICIENT) what do you do? You expand.

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

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

See, everytime I solved the brackets first. And I got 2 as the final result to OPs question. Because brackets comes before division and multiplication, and so when you have brackets like that you cannot read left to right.

With fractions you do not read left to right, or top to bottom - you solve whatever comes first.

You too are completely missing the point. The coefficient is not "part of the brackets". The coefficient is just multiplication. That's it. It doesn't get priority because it's "attached" to the brackets, it's just more multiplication. The coefficient here is 48/2, because the division is written first.

Also, in BIDMAS, or BEMDAS, or whatever you want to call it, the B does not mean "get rid of the brackets". It does not mean "expand the brackets". It means "solve everything inside the brackets". That's not an opinion, or ambiguous, that's just what it means.

There is nothing in the Axioms of algebra that says anything about Bodmas, pemdas or whatever.

Order of ops is important for kids. Important for computers (And even in programming it seems to be applied patchily with distributivity being applied before and after on the TI-85 and the TI-86 respectively).

Pemdas is not relevent when doing algebra.

I'm not sure most would agree that

A ÷ BD

does not equal

AD ÷ B

There should be brackets after the division symbol but I think the distribution of the 2 into the brackets is implied here.

I lean towards the answer being 2 but I would accept 288.

Why is the distribution implied? It's just multiplication. With symbols or letters it is less clear, but when you have numbers, there is no reason to assume that the multiplication takes preference.

But there is not reason to assume that division takes preference apart from PEMDAS which doesn't appear in any serious Algebreic text.

Edit:

And are you saying the laws of one part of mathematics do not apply to others?

If

A = 48, B = 2,

D = 9 + 3 = 12

A ÷ BD = 2

 

[Cerdog]

Some people's understanding of BIDMAS is shocking. When you take care of brackets, you do everything INSIDE the brackets. You don't expand them, you don't distribute them, you just do everything inside them. So you get:

48÷2(9+3) = 48÷2(12)

2(12) is EXACTLY THE SAME as 2x12. The brackets, at this point, are irrelevant. For people trying to subsitute x = 12 here, it doesn't work, as implied multiplication is a) ambiguous and b) works differently for variables.

Actually, I want to double check my work.

48/2(9+x)=2
48/(18+2x)=2
48=2(18+2x)
48=36+4x
48-36=4x
4x=12
x=3

Yup, still works.

/thread

No. You are completely missing the point of what everyone is saying. Even if you ignore the different rules for variables and constants, your maths is incorrect. Let's look at the first line:

48/2(9+x)=2

What you have done is distributed the 2 into the brackets. THIS IS INCORRECT. As this is multiplication, and not "part of the brackets", you have to do division and multiplication from left to right, as they have equal precedence. So rather than:

48/(18+2x)=2

you should have:

24(9+x)=2
216+24x = 2
24x = -214
x = -8.917

Which is not 3, obviously.

Despite your algebraic method, you are still falling for the trap that so many others are falling for, which is to assume that the 2 is part of the brackets, which is WRONG. Algebra does not make your answer more valid, especially when the core idea of the method, which happens to be what people have been trying to tell you is wrong, is completely overlooked.

So you're trying to tell me that


.........AC
A ÷ BC = --
.........B

No.

If it were

A ÷ B * C

I might agree.

I'm not sure what you meant to write here, but I can guess. It's kind of tricky, as rules seem slightly different for variables, but I would hazard a guess at yes. It's ambiguous either way, although the original question is much less so.

Some people's understanding of BIDMAS is shocking. When you take care of brackets, you do everything INSIDE the brackets. You don't expand them, you don't distribute them, you just do everything inside them. So you get:

48÷2(9+3) = 48÷2(12)

2(12) is EXACTLY THE SAME as 2x12. The brackets, at this point, are irrelevant. For people trying to subsitute x = 12 here, it doesn't work, as implied multiplication is a) ambiguous and b) works differently for variables.

Actually, I want to double check my work.

48/2(9+x)=2
48/(18+2x)=2
48=2(18+2x)
48=36+4x
48-36=4x
4x=12
x=3

Yup, still works.

/thread

No. You are completely missing the point of what everyone is saying. Even if you ignore the different rules for variables and constants, your maths is incorrect. Let's look at the first line:

48/2(9+x)=2

What you have done is distributed the 2 into the brackets. THIS IS INCORRECT. As this is multiplication, and not "part of the brackets", you have to do division and multiplication from left to right, as they have equal precedence. So rather than:

48/(18+2x)=2

you should have:

24(9+x)=2
216+24x = 2
24x = -214
x = -8.917

Which is not 3, obviously.

Despite your algebraic method, you are still falling for the trap that so many others are falling for, which is to assume that the 2 is part of the brackets, which is WRONG. Algebra does not make your answer more valid, especially when the core idea of the method, which happens to be what people have been trying to tell you is wrong, is completely overlooked.

So what you're saying is that expanding brackets doesn't work...right? Because I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying.

48/2(9+x)=2

Yes, when you have multiplication and division you read it left to right. But brackets trumps all. Why? Because that is the whole point of brackets. So you do solve the brackets first. And when you have a pronumeral in the brackets (WHICH INCLUDES THE COEFFICIENT) what do you do? You expand.

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

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

See, everytime I solved the brackets first. And I got 2 as the final result to OPs question. Because brackets comes before division and multiplication, and so when you have brackets like that you cannot read left to right.

With fractions you do not read left to right, or top to bottom - you solve whatever comes first.

You too are completely missing the point. The coefficient is not "part of the brackets". The coefficient is just multiplication. That's it. It doesn't get priority because it's "attached" to the brackets, it's just more multiplication. The coefficient here is 48/2, because the division is written first.

Also, in BIDMAS, or BEMDAS, or whatever you want to call it, the B does not mean "get rid of the brackets". It does not mean "expand the brackets". It means "solve everything inside the brackets". That's not an opinion, or ambiguous, that's just what it means.

There is nothing in the Axioms of algebra that says anything about Bodmas, pemdas or whatever.

Order of ops is important for kids. Important for computers (And even in programming it seems to be applied patchily with distributivity being applied before and after on the TI-85 and the TI-86 respectively).

Pemdas is not relevent when doing algebra.

I'm not sure most would agree that

A ÷ BD

does not equal

AD ÷ B

There should be brackets after the division symbol but I think the distribution of the 2 into the brackets is implied here.

I lean towards the answer being 2 but I would accept 288.

Why is the distribution implied? It's just multiplication. With symbols or letters it is less clear, but when you have numbers, there is no reason to assume that the multiplication takes preference.

But there is not reason to assume that division takes preference apart from PEMDAS which doesn't appear in any serious Algebreic text.

Edit. And are you saying the laws of one part of mathematics do not apply to others?

I'm not saying it takes preference; they have equal precedence, as they are essentially the same function. Therefore you go from left to right.

I'm not entirely sure of the rules, but Wolfram Alpha, for example, uses implied multiplication with variables but not the question of this thread.