Poll: What is the answer to 48/2(9+3)?

[tirone231]

its 288
just use BEDMAS(brackets,exponents,division,multiplication,addition,subtraction) left to right
you divide and multiply at the same time so you go left to right

You are totally correct. It's 288. 'Divide' and 'Multiply' are treated by the same weight in the BEDMAS formula (as are 'addition' and 'subtraction'). When you have operators that have equal weight, always start from the left.

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

And if you don't trust me (I'm in university with a math minor), trust Wolfram Alpha =D 48/2(9+3) [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F2%289%2B3%29]

I, also being in college, (though not with a Math minor or major) am curious as to when the PEMDAS was replaced with BEDMAS. According to the first, the answer is 2, but according to the second, it's 288...why am I sooooo confused?

 

[Mayki5]

Now: Question for you. When entering the problem into my calculator, with the multiplication added in, so 48/2*(9+3), it returns the answer 288.

However: When entering the equation 48/2(9+3) into the SAME CALCULATOR, it returns the answer 2.
By removing the multiplication sign from the equation, the calculater worked it out totally differently.

To tease the brains of those so invested already and perhaps for some amusement, why?

 

[Imat]

The equation is written in such a way as to elicit some initial confusion from us mere mortals, but the confusion is obliterated by computers, which follow simple and accepted mathematical rules.

Honestly, confusion regarding PEMDAS is quite common it would seem as most people believe that it asserts one MULTIPLIES everything and then DIVIDES everything regardless of their order (because it works that way with parentheses and exponents presumably). The only valid point of ambiguity lies in the fact that the operator between 2 and ( is only implied (by the normal mathematical convention) to be * rather than outright asserted. Even if this were true it is likely that people would still complain about ambiguity where there is none.

If I have a statement like this:

a / b (x + y + z) the order of operations is simply (a / b) * (x + y + z). The ONLY way to link all those other operands and operators to that divisor operator is by the use of parenthesis like this: a/(b(x + y + z)). Given the original equation, if you wanted the result to be 2 one would necessarily have to write it as 48/(2(9+3)).

At no point is this equation ambiguous. It is clearly stated using common mathematical notation. People seem to assume that if they cannot interpret it correctly it must be ambiguous when the actual problem is they have a less than adequate understanding of precedence and notation.

I was just saying that the way it is written will cause just about everybody to, at the very least, go back over the equation to see what was meant. If you just instantly understood the equation from a single scan, left-to-right, then congrats, you have beaten computers at a numbers game. Not that the average man would puzzle over it for half an hour before googling the answer in defeat.

 

[Dragonshredder]

... 42

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I was just saying that the way it is written will cause just about everybody to, at the very least, go back over the equation to see what was meant. If you just instantly understood the equation from a single scan, left-to-right, then congrats, you have beaten computers at a numbers game. Not that the average man would puzzle over it for half an hour before googling the answer in defeat.

My argument is not that there is no confusion; instead, I am simply guessing as to where the confusion is arising from. The statement is not in any way ambiguous and more to the point is short enough to dramatically reduce the probability of simple mistakes in arithmetic. My only guess is that people are mistaking the rules of PEMDAS. If one assumes that each element is done in exactly that order (i.e. that multiplication and division do not have equal precedence) THEN the answer would be 2. Given that misconceptions of this sort of fairly common, I have to assume this is where the problem lies.

 

[Syntax Error]

Given more thought, I think the answer depends on how you interpret the /. If you see it as the bar in a fraction, the answer is 2. If you see it as a division sign, the answer is 288.

 

[Conza]

I think this can be put to bed, its simple, read left to right and whether or not M or D comes first, once reading from left to right, you get your answer.

in this instance [48/2(9+3)], 288.

If it were written as [48/(18+6)], then, you would have your result of 2. P/B then O/E then there's only a D left.

 

[SageSays]

Now: Question for you. When entering the problem into my calculator, with the multiplication added in, so 48/2*(9+3), it returns the answer 288.

However: When entering the equation 48/2(9+3) into the SAME CALCULATOR, it returns the answer 2.
By removing the multiplication sign from the equation, the calculator worked it out totally differently.

To tease the brains of those so invested already and perhaps for some amusement, why?

In the same way that "we" imply that fractional mathematics assumes that everything after the division symbol is a denominator, the multiplication operator allows the programmed mathematics to imply that the equation now reads 48 divided by 2 and multiplied by 9 plus 3.
Your calculator is programmed to assume human input, so it first reads the equation in fractional maths as 48 divided by; the sum of 9 and 3 which is multiplied by 2.

 

[spacecowboy86]

The fundamental problem here is that the only way one could possibly interpret the statement the way you describe is to follow something other than the common rules of precedence and notation. Once you discard those things, math quickly ceases to be generally a useful means for conveying information (it is imply a language after all). Suffice it to say that people who somehow insist my interpretation is incorrect are (in spite of training that implies otherwise) laboring under some notion regarding notation and precedence that both I and the internet at large are ignorant of.

I never "insisted that your interpretation was incorrect" and never meant to offend your knowledge of mathmatics. I simply was phrasing that the equation's current form can lead some, such as myself, to misinterprate the interaction and relationship between the numbers. can you at least consider that the slash after the 48 could possibly mean that this entire equation is really just one complex fraction, and that it was typed in a confusing manner, and that it could possibly be represented accurately in the follwing manner?

_48__
2(3+9)

_48_
2(12)

48
24

2

 

[timeadept]

its 288
just use BEDMAS(brackets,exponents,division,multiplication,addition,subtraction) left to right
you divide and multiply at the same time so you go left to right

You are totally correct. It's 288. 'Divide' and 'Multiply' are treated by the same weight in the BEDMAS formula (as are 'addition' and 'subtraction'). When you have operators that have equal weight, always start from the left.

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

And if you don't trust me (I'm in university with a math minor), trust Wolfram Alpha =D 48/2(9+3) [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F2%289%2B3%29]

I, also being in college, (though not with a Math minor or major) am curious as to when the PEMDAS was replaced with BEDMAS. According to the first, the answer is 2, but according to the second, it's 288...why am I sooooo confused?

According to both the answer is the same, 288. You've simply missed the detail that it is not simply PEMDAS, that is just an acronym for Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally ( a useful tool for remembering the steps in order). In reality you cannot literally write it in the correct order because multiplication and division take place at the same time, as do addition and subtraction. (Well that's not true, we could merge the M and D and A and S into single letters, then it would literally reflect what is going on.) The way you determine which happens first, (M or D / A or S) is you go back to the start and read the problem from left to right and do the operations in the order that they appear from left to right. In this case, division before multiplication.

sorry if i seemed to be belittling you, i only wanted to be as clear as possible as misunderstanding seems to be the basis for this thread.

 

[Imat]

I was just saying that the way it is written will cause just about everybody to, at the very least, go back over the equation to see what was meant. If you just instantly understood the equation from a single scan, left-to-right, then congrats, you have beaten computers at a numbers game. Not that the average man would puzzle over it for half an hour before googling the answer in defeat.

My argument is not that there is no confusion; instead, I am simply guessing as to where the confusion is arising from. The statement is not in any way ambiguous and more to the point is short enough to dramatically reduce the probability of simple mistakes in arithmetic. My only guess is that people are mistaking the rules of PEMDAS. If one assumes that each element is done in exactly that order (i.e. that multiplication and division do not have equal precedence) THEN the answer would be 2. Given that misconceptions of this sort of fairly common, I have to assume this is where the problem lies.

Oh...I thought you were saying that there is no possible way for it to be confusing at all. That would be my bad.

I think the problem is generated, not from PEMDAS or any other order of operations acronym, but from a fundamental brain problem which is telling the mathematical center that everything after the '/' is in the denominator. I think this mostly comes about as a result of the poor communication skills of simple ascii characters. On paper this could be written much more clearly, leading to complete understanding by any human who understands multiplication and division. On a computer, however, things may not seem so black and white to some folks.

That is just my understanding of the problem at hand, however, based on responses to this thread. I may be completely wrong on that one, but that seems to be a general source of confusion.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I never "insisted that your interpretation was incorrect" and never meant to offend your knowledge of mathmatics. I simply was phrasing that the equation's current form can lead some, such as myself, to misinterprate the interaction and relationship between the numbers. can you at least consider that the slash after the 48 could possibly mean that this entire equation is really just one complex fraction, and that it was typed in a confusing manner, and that it could possibly be represented accurately in the follwing manner?

_48__
2(3+9)

I do not begrudge someone for a misinterpretation here. It is simply that I do not agree that the misinterpretation was the result of ambiguous notation as the notation quite explicitly describes the order in which we do the problem and what operands are involved. Something can easily be unclear without being ambiguous. Ambiguity implies that correctly following the rules results in multiple distinct interpretations, something that certainly is not the case here. By contrast there are any number of things that can make this statement unclear.

 

[WorldCritic]

I got 288, screw what they tell you about Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally crap.

 

[Zukhramm]

The way you determine which happens first, (M or D / A or S) is you go back to the start and read the problem from left to right and do the operations in the order that they appear from left to right. In this case, division before multiplication

Or you just do it because the order doesn't matter.


I'm actually surprised about these mnemonics, I was never taught anything like that. The thing to rememver seems more complex than the actual rule to me.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

Now: Question for you. When entering the problem into my calculator, with the multiplication added in, so 48/2*(9+3), it returns the answer 288.

However: When entering the equation 48/2(9+3) into the SAME CALCULATOR, it returns the answer 2.
By removing the multiplication sign from the equation, the calculater worked it out totally differently.

To tease the brains of those so invested already and perhaps for some amusement, why?

I don't know about your calculator, but my TI-83 Plus returned with the answer 288 for: 48/2(9+3). Your calculator must be quite fail if it can't follow PEDMAS.

Op, this isn't at all a clever mindbender. It's you taking advantage of an ambiguous, poorly-written math problem, but hey, whatever helps you feel good about yourself, right?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

That is just my understanding of the problem at hand, however, based on responses to this thread. I may be completely wrong on that one, but that seems to be a general source of confusion.

I suspect the simple fact that I am a computer science student is probably what utterly eliminates any confusion in this regard for me. The vast majority of the math problems I see are written in a form similar to that. I agree that, were the problem written differently, (i.e. by hand) it would be less confusing.

For example, I suspect this statement, which is identical to the one above in the OP, would be less likely to be misinterpreted:

48 (9 + 3)
2

 

[Fists]

Actually surprised I'm in the minority voting for 2, to get 288 you would need (48/2)(9+3) or 48/2·(9+3)
(The second is shorthand used in chemistry, not sure if its common anywhere else).

 

[timeadept]

I never "insisted that your interpretation was incorrect" and never meant to offend your knowledge of mathmatics. I simply was phrasing that the equation's current form can lead some, such as myself, to misinterprate the interaction and relationship between the numbers. can you at least consider that the slash after the 48 could possibly mean that this entire equation is really just one complex fraction, and that it was typed in a confusing manner, and that it could possibly be represented accurately in the follwing manner?

_48__
2(3+9)

I do not begrudge someone for a misinterpretation here. It is simply that I do not agree that the misinterpretation was the result of ambiguous notation as the notation quite explicitly describes the order in which we do the problem and what operands are involved. Something can easily be unclear without being ambiguous. Ambiguity implies that correctly following the rules results in multiple distinct interpretations, something that certainly is not the case here. By contrast there are any number of things that can make this statement unclear.

Thanks for that clarification of the difference between ambiguity and lack of clarity. I'm usually a shy, compromising person but I've been taught to be militant when it comes to mathematics. I was struggling to find an appropriate choice of words to describe what exactly what is wrong with the problem, because math, by its nature cannot possibly be ambiguous.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I don't know about your calculator, but my TI-83 Plus returned with the answer 288 for: 48/2(9+3). Your calculator must be quite fail if it can't follow PEDMAS.

I tried it on my TI-89 and a Casio fx-9750G and the result was 288 regardless of if I entered a multiplication symbol between the 2 and the (. I'm curious as to what calculator was in use given that a mistake of that sort would generally reside at the hardware level and it would necessarily make the same mistake any time an equation of that form were entered.

 

[Merkavar]

Remember the thread way back a few years ago where people were discussing the nerdiest thing they had ever debated about? My answer is now this thread.

i got 2

9+3*2=24
48/24

google changes the formula to look like this (48 / 2) * (9 + 3) = 288

I don't see the point you're trying to make. Google's saying you're wrong (which you are), and you're trying to show it as evidence that you're right?

no i was saying that i got 2 as my answer cause i calculated it following brackets then times then divided then plus and then minus but google basically just went left to right. i was showing that google did it differently from me and thats why google got the right answer. i was treating the / as denominator and numerator seperating the 48 from the 2*(9+3)