48÷2(9+3)=?

[ACman]

Or does anybody remember the division of fractions

A = 48 ÷ 2(9 + 3)
=48 x 1/(2(9 + 3))
=48/24
=2

 

[forsinain42]

I was taught BATLYKW

Brackets and then like, you know, whatever.

 

[tombman888]

288

bedmas or what ever

so 9+3=12
48/2=12*12=288

Spoiler: similiar sort of question

That made me laugh, thankyou.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Both answers are fine more brackets are needed it doesn't get much simpler than that. You can do the brackets first then do order of operation or the way you are doing it.

Um, 48 / (9 + 3)^2 would be 48 / (12 * 12) but not 48 / 12 * 12 .

48 / (1+1)^2 would be 48 / (2 *(1 +1)) but not 48 / 2 * 2 . See? As in 48 / 2*(9+3) ?

x / y *z is not the same as x / (y*z).

I don't think I understand you. For 48 ÷ (9+3)^2 you would have

48 ÷ (9+3)(9+3)
= 48 ÷ (12)(12)
= 48 ÷ 144

but you couldn't have

(48 ÷ (9+3))^2
= 4^2
= 16

Which is what I was saying. And I very much understand that last little bit, but that's not what the question is, nor is it the problem. The problem is that people are overlooking the fact that there are 2 sets of (9+3) and are thinking that there is a half set of 48. The two is a part of the brackets and is nothing else, which is what I'm trying to tell people. Unlike other questions, this one is not ambiguous. The 2 is a part of the brackets.

No it is not in their mind and is a valid interpretation as the order of operations is

• terms inside parentheses or brackets
  exponents and roots
  multiplication and division As they appear left to right
  addition and subtraction As they appear left to right

Right so it can be read as 48/2*(9+3) which is 48/2*12 then with order of operations taking / as standard division symbol and not a fraction line it is 288. You are taking it as though it would be a fraction line so we have 48 over 2*12 which does give 2. So yes it is ambiguous. You can chop and change it whatever way you like but standard order does not favour you but algebra shows you as right. What we need is more brackets and stop this shit everytime someone rehashes this flamebaiting thread.

 

[dday4you]

is it 2 or 288?

It's 1337.
Problem?

explain?

 

[Shio]

288.

48÷2(9+3)

1. 9 + 3 = 12

2. 48 / 2 = 24

3. 24 x 12 = 288.

 

[Kingsnake661]

The way i was taught is. Brackets first, then left to right.

48/2(9+3)=?
48/2(12)=
48/2*12=
24*12=
288

 

[dday4you]

lol

 

[AceAngel]

I'm confused, I thought it was well known that there are two answers because the question was written very vaguely and without proper guidelines (this question would never fly in a Uni based question for Maths).

Hell, even in game development, they set guidelines on how certain things should be introspected mathematically for shaders, with specific dividers and limits for inverses.

And here we are, on the Escapist, on a 6/7 page thread discussing the very question which isn't correct in the first place.

Honestly, guys, if you're going to make fun of 4Chan, Facebook and other people, take a look at yourself and the posters around you beforehand.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

48 ÷ (9+3)2

It makes no difference to the way the equation works in the second form, but makes drastic changes to the way the equation works in the first one.

There is something you are missunderstanding which is that the 2 and the (9+3) are not glued together, they do not have brackets around them, the problem is due to peoples misinterpretation with the divide, however if we rewrite the equation to change it all into multiplication it becomes clearer.
48÷2(9+3)
=48÷2*(9+3)
as ÷2 = *0.5
48÷2*(9+3)
=48*0.5*(9+3)
=48*0.5*12
=48*6
=288

No, they are glued together and that is very much fact. The 2 is the coefficient of the brackets and must be treated as a part of them, there is no getting around that. Your mistake is treating the 2 as if it weren't glued to the brackets and inserting a multiplication symbol into it. There is no problem with the divide at all. Again, lets look at a different equation to prove I'm right (although the last one didn't go well). Also, I will end up seeming really patronising, so I apologise in advance, I just want to jump through every single hoop.

2x
It's plain to see that the coefficient of x is 2, correct? And that 2x can be rewritten as 2(x)? Because 2*x is 2x. So:

20 ÷ 2x can be rewritten as 20 ÷ 2(x)
So, with the same principle you applied to before you could say that

20 ÷ 2x = (20 ÷ 2)(x)
If x = 4 then

20 ÷ 2(4) = (20 ÷ 2)(4)
2.5 =/= 40

So you can't separate the coefficient from it's partner because they are very much glued together.

 

[DaMullet]

Well, this is where I love algebra

Let's try this

48÷x(9+3)=2
BEDMAS
Brackets
48÷x(12)=2
Simplify
48/12x=2
Multiply both sides by 12x
48=24x
divide both sides by 24
2=x

Done

Let's try that again

48÷x(9+3)=288
48÷x(12)=2
48/12x=288
48=3456x
x=0.0138888888888889

That doesn't work at all

Behold the awesome might of algebra!

Actually following BEDMAS it's still 288
48/2(9+3)
Brackets first
so 48/2(12)
or 48/2*12
read from left to right:
becomes 24*12
or 288

No, you're wrong in one step, 48/2(12) is not the same as 48/2*12
You change an exponent to multiplication for no reason what so ever. Doesn't matter if that's how you solve it, exponents exist for a reason damnit!

 

[ACman]

48 ÷ (9+3)2

It makes no difference to the way the equation works in the second form, but makes drastic changes to the way the equation works in the first one.

There is something you are missunderstanding which is that the 2 and the (9+3) are not glued together, they do not have brackets around them, the problem is due to peoples misinterpretation with the divide, however if we rewrite the equation to change it all into multiplication it becomes clearer.
48÷2(9+3)
=48÷2*(9+3)
as ÷2 = *0.5
48÷2*(9+3)
=48*0.5*(9+3)
=48*0.5*12
=48*6
=288

You're adding a operation that wasn't originally there and changing the answer.

 

[Thomas Rembrandt]

Both answers are fine more brackets are needed it doesn't get much simpler than that. You can do the brackets first then do order of operation or the way you are doing it.

Um, 48 / (9 + 3)^2 would be 48 / (12 * 12) but not 48 / 12 * 12 .

48 / (1+1)^2 would be 48 / (2 *(1 +1)) but not 48 / 2 * 2 . See? As in 48 / 2*(9+3) ?

x / y *z is not the same as x / (y*z).

I don't think I understand you. For 48 ÷ (9+3)^2 you would have

48 ÷ (9+3)(9+3)
= 48 ÷ (12)(12)
= 48 ÷ 144

but you couldn't have

(48 ÷ (9+3))^2
= 4^2
= 16

Which is what I was saying. And I very much understand that last little bit, but that's not what the question is, nor is it the problem. The problem is that people are overlooking the fact that there are 2 sets of (9+3) and are thinking that there is a half set of 48. The two is a part of the brackets and is nothing else, which is what I'm trying to tell people. Unlike other questions, this one is not ambiguous. The 2 is a part of the brackets.

No, 48 / x^2 is not 48 / x *x . It's 48 / (x * x). Really. Like in 8/2^2 is 8/4 = 2 and 8/2*2 is 8.

 

[MercurySteam]

is it 2 or 288?

It's 1337.
Problem?

explain?

Basically this:

 

[benbenthegamerman]

Pemdas.

48/2(9+3)

48/2x12

24x12

288

no?

 

[ACman]

well if it were a statement in java, the brackets resolve first, leaving you with:
48/2(12)
now you have division and multiplication left to resolve. Since they are equal in priority, they resolve left to right. So:

24*12 = 288

I would assume programming languages use the same math as math, but i haven't been in high school for a very long time, i wouldn't remember exactly.

48/2(12) is different to 48/2*12

Brackets first! Including coefficients of brackets!

 

[The Stonker]

is it 2 or 288?

It's 1337.
Problem?

explain?

Easy, 1337 and 42 is the answer to everything.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Right so it can be read as 48/2*(9+3) which is 48/2*12 then with order of operations taking / as standard division symbol and not a fraction line it is 288. You are taking it as though it would be a fraction line so we have 48 over 2*12 which does give 2. So yes it is ambiguous. You can chop and change it whatever way you like but standard order does not favour you but algebra shows you as right. What we need is more brackets and stop this shit everytime someone rehashes this flamebaiting thread.

My issue is not with the division symbol at all. My issue is that people are dismissing coefficients altogether. The 2 is a coefficient of (9+3) and not as something to divide the 48 by.

2x
It's plain to see that the coefficient of x is 2, correct? And that 2x can be rewritten as 2(x)? Because 2*x is 2x. So:

20 ÷ 2x can be rewritten as 20 ÷ 2(x)
So, with the same principle you applied to before you could say that

20 ÷ 2x = (20 ÷ 2)(x)
If x = 4 then

20 ÷ 2(4) = (20 ÷ 2)(4)
2.5 =/= 40

So you can't separate the coefficient from it's partner because they are very much glued together.

This is why the answer must be 2. If the coefficient is disregarded and a function is added in like dividing the 48 by 2 then the answer will be changed drastically.

 

[Thomas Rembrandt]

48 ÷ (9+3)2

It makes no difference to the way the equation works in the second form, but makes drastic changes to the way the equation works in the first one.

There is something you are missunderstanding which is that the 2 and the (9+3) are not glued together, they do not have brackets around them, the problem is due to peoples misinterpretation with the divide, however if we rewrite the equation to change it all into multiplication it becomes clearer.
48÷2(9+3)
=48÷2*(9+3)
as ÷2 = *0.5
48÷2*(9+3)
=48*0.5*(9+3)
=48*0.5*12
=48*6
=288

You're adding a operation that wasn't originally there and changing the answer.

No he is absolutly right. Division by 2 is equal to multiplication by 0.5 . And x *y*z = x*z*y.
48 * 0.5* 12 = 48*12*0.5 = 288

 

[JoshGod]

48 ÷ (9+3)2

It makes no difference to the way the equation works in the second form, but makes drastic changes to the way the equation works in the first one.

There is something you are missunderstanding which is that the 2 and the (9+3) are not glued together, they do not have brackets around them, the problem is due to peoples misinterpretation with the divide, however if we rewrite the equation to change it all into multiplication it becomes clearer.
48÷2(9+3)
=48÷2*(9+3)
as ÷2 = *0.5
48÷2*(9+3)
=48*0.5*(9+3)
=48*0.5*12
=48*6
=288

No, they are glued together and that is very much fact. The 2 is the coefficient of the brackets and must be treated as a part of them, there is no getting around that. Your mistake is treating the 2 as if it weren't glued to the brackets and inserting a multiplication symbol into it. There is no problem with the divide at all. Again, lets look at a different equation to prove I'm right (although the last one didn't go well). Also, I will end up seeming really patronising, so I apologise in advance, I just want to jump through every single hoop.

2x
It's plain to see that the coefficient of x is 2, correct? And that 2x can be rewritten as 2(x)? Because 2*x is 2x. So:

20 ÷ 2x can be rewritten as 20 ÷ 2(x)
So, with the same principle you applied to before you could say that

20 ÷ 2x = (20 ÷ 2)(x)
If x = 4 then

20 ÷ 2(4) = (20 ÷ 2)(4)
2.5 =/= 40

So you can't separate the coefficient from it's partner because they are very much glued together.

If there is no bracket around the 2(9+3) then how is that any different from writing 2*(9+3), moreover did you read my method, because when you rewrite ÷2 as *0.5 it doesn't matter how you do it as it becomes 288.
EDIT; i dont mean to sound like an ass, its just you didnt comment on my solution.