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

[XzarTheMad]

It's nothing more than simple PEMDAS

48/2*(9+3)

You do what's in the parentheses first

48/2*12

No.

You multiply into the paranthesis, as such:
2*(9+3) = (2*9)+(2*3) = 18+6 = 24

Then you do whatever multiplication or division comes first. In this case it was 48/2

24*12

Dude, wat? You'd do that if the question was (42/2)*(9+3). You can't divide by a single number in the denominator and leave out the rest. Everything "above" the division and everything "below" the division.


I hope this is not an indication of American math. Honestly, I suck at math, and this just seems like elementary school stuff to me. Whatever PEMDAS is, this is a clear and easy matter of calculating it using your brain, not a standard formula.

48/2(9+3) = 48/(2*9)+(2*3) = 48/18+6 = 48/24 = 2

Anything else is incorrect.

Please stop trolling the answer is 288

follow PEMDAS



saying you suck at math then saying its real easy and still shwoing the wrong answer just shows your ignorance and stupidity.

Your Denmark math is obviously superior then.

How is my answer wrong? Please tell me. Rather than trolling I actually showed where the problem was, and how it should be calculated instead. Actually, it's rather ironic that you accuse me of trolling, and then attack my country.

Whatever PEMDAS is, it's obvious that you are doing it wrong. Consulting an american friend, I was told that even with PEMDAS the answer is 2. I've explained why in my previous post (not the one quoted), please read that. And, if you have anything more to say, please let it be educated.

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

You do what is in the parentheses first always then any exponents then checking from left to right any multiplying and division not in parentheses and finally any addition and subtraction not in parentheses to come up with your answer.

I assume you never went beyond elementary school math. It's clear that there's no explicit symbol between the 2 and the paranthesis. Thus you treat them as a single entity. True, you solve the paranthesis first, but multiplying into it: 2(9+3) = (2*9)+(2*3) = 18+6 = 24. This is the entire point of the excercise. Trying to point to lacking paranthesis works both ways, so you can't defend the problem as being poorly written. It's true that you could simply do (9+3) = (12), but you'd still have to multiply it by 2, because of the rule of treating them as a single entity.

I wish I'd had some math in English so I could explain this better. I probably don't use the right terminology. I am right, however.

 

[jp201]

I don't know why you want us to do your homework for you, but I got 288... after you do the parentheses, you're supposed to do them from left to right. I think it's a poorly written problem, though.

lol it's not a homework problem man, I'm not in middle school. This question is blowing up other forums and reddit.

48/2(12) = 2 using PEMDAS

that is not correct. the 2 is not in the parentheses and therefore is only treated as multiplication in PEMDAS.

The M = multiplication and D = Division is done in order from left to right. regardless which one shows first. since division is first we do that.

48/2=24 24(12)= 288

 

[EGtodd09]

It's a trick question guys, there is no right answer in it's current format. If the question is just 48/2(9+3) in it's linear fashion it is indeed 288. But if it's
42
______
2(9+3)
(I can't think of a better way to type that) which is what it looks like as it's written with a line instead of a division sign its 2 but really, written as it is, neither option is correct.

 

[Onoto]

Well, assuming I couldn't ask someone to write the &%$#ing problem correctly, I would assume that since the knucklehead used brackets on the (9+3) he would have used brackets around 48/2 if he intended it to equal 24.

 

[jp201]

It's nothing more than simple PEMDAS

48/2*(9+3)

You do what's in the parentheses first

48/2*12

No.

You multiply into the paranthesis, as such:
2*(9+3) = (2*9)+(2*3) = 18+6 = 24

Then you do whatever multiplication or division comes first. In this case it was 48/2

24*12

Dude, wat? You'd do that if the question was (42/2)*(9+3). You can't divide by a single number in the denominator and leave out the rest. Everything "above" the division and everything "below" the division.


I hope this is not an indication of American math. Honestly, I suck at math, and this just seems like elementary school stuff to me. Whatever PEMDAS is, this is a clear and easy matter of calculating it using your brain, not a standard formula.

48/2(9+3) = 48/(2*9)+(2*3) = 48/18+6 = 48/24 = 2

Anything else is incorrect.

Please stop trolling the answer is 288

follow PEMDAS



saying you suck at math then saying its real easy and still shwoing the wrong answer just shows your ignorance and stupidity.

Your Denmark math is obviously superior then.

How is my answer wrong? Please tell me. Rather than trolling I actually showed where the problem was, and how it should be calculated instead. Actually, it's rather ironic that you accuse me of trolling, and then attack my country.

Whatever PEMDAS is, it's obvious that you are doing it wrong. Consulting an american friend, I was told that even with PEMDAS the answer is 2. I've explained why in my previous post (not the one quoted), please read that. And, if you have anything more to say, please let it be educated.

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

You do what is in the parentheses first always then any exponents then checking from left to right any multiplying and division not in parentheses and finally any addition and subtraction not in parentheses to come up with your answer.

I assume you never went beyond elementary school math. It's clear that there's no explicit symbol between the 2 and the paranthesis. Thus you treat them as a single entity. True, you solve the paranthesis first, but multiplying into it: 2(9+3) = (2*9)+(2*3) = 18+6 = 24. This is the entire point of the excercise. Trying to point to lacking paranthesis works both ways, so you can't defend the problem as being poorly written. It's true that you could simply do (9+3) = (12), but you'd still have to multiply it by 2, because of the rule of treating them as a single entity.

I wish I'd had some math in English so I could explain this better. I probably don't use the right terminology. I am right, however.

How did you get that the 2 in multiplied into both the 9 and the 3?

that is not even close to how anyone else approached this problem. You say you suck at math and your defending your answer really hard for someone who admits their weakness in this subject

 

[pln9fos]

You could get either answer, depending on how you write it. In the form that it's written in now, I got 2, but if it was on a piece of paper with 48/2, then (9+3) next to that entire function, you'd get 288.

 

[Trivun]

Seems everyone has one of theese, I learnt this one in year 6, BOMDAS Brackets or multiplication (If there is brackets) devision then addition and subtraction. so by my method, it becomes
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
24*12
288

Sorry, but that's wrong. As I pointed out to someone else in my previous post. Your mistake is that you've forgotten that the (12) is still on the bottom of the fraction, and thus your third line should still read 24/12, not 24(12). Which gives the answer as 2. To put it in a better way, imagine that in each of these next lines, there's a fraction line seperating the numbers on the top and bottom. So 48/2(12) becomes:

48
2(12)

This then gives:

48
24

Giving an answer of 2. Otherwise, write that second fraction as:

48
2(12)

Becomes:

24
(12)

Which again gives the answer as 2. I hope that makes a bit more sense now

 

[McNoobin]

To put it simply, when written like that you never assume it's a fraction unless told otherwise. Soooo 288.

 

[mew4ever23]

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?

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

How is this problem blowing up other forums? It's simple order of operations or BEDMAS, as the mnemonic I was taught goes:

1. Brackets
2. Exponents
3. Division and Multiplication (Left to right, neither has priority)
4. Addition and Subraction (Left to right, neither has priority)

The answer, in steps:

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

(* = Multiplication)

Mmmhmm. BEDMAS remains ingrained in my skull as well.

[sub]*shudder* I had hoped I was done with math.[/sub]

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I was taught BEDMAS, PEMDAS must be foreign

That's what I'm thinking too.

[sub]The Escapist keeps nomming my posts.[/sub]

 

[XzarTheMad]

My last attempt in this thread before I give up.

Since there is no visible symbol of multiplication between the 2 and the paranthesis, it MUST be a single entity, 2(9+3). The idea that you must put paranthesis around it holds no weight, as I can just as well say that you must put a paranthesis around 48/2 for the 288 answer to be correct. It's not a matter of poorly written or lacking paranthesis, it's a matter of poor reading comprehension.

Had it been 48/2*(9+3), then it's correct that there is a problem. But, it's not. It's clearly there, in the title. No multiplication symbol. It's a single entity. It must be treated first, resulting in (2*9)+(2*3) = 24, thus making the answer 2. The entire question is based on this. This is THE question. Can you see this? Do you know this? And unless this was a question thought up by a moron in his mom's basement, I can't see any reason this would not be made EXACTLY to test people on this rule, that if you omit a multiplication symbol it's because they're a single entity. Just like 4X = 4*X, but because you treat them as a single entity you omit the multiplication symbol.

Actually, the parenthesis is a clear sign. If there are no other symbols (or a parenthesized portion isn't noticeably used as an exponent), the parenthesis stands for multiplication. Trust me. As someone who has a college degree in math and is working on their PhD. Let's take your 4X = 4*X example, and slightly modify it to 1/4x. Now, as we look at this, it is the same as 1/4 * x, however you are trying to claim it equal to 1/(4x). Because there is not anything to specialize that the x is in the denominator, the default methodology used by mathematicians the world over is that it is multiplied. When you "omit" a multiplication sign, it doesn't make them a single entry. 1/4x = 1/4 * x 1/(4x)

Another way to go about this, is simply substitution. Say that (9+3) = x. Now we have 48/2x = 24x, because nowhere does it say that x is being used to divide, because the mathematical equation is written purely left to write and therefore defaults to multiplication. If this was handwritten as 48/(2x) and someone translated it to 48/2x not realizing what they were doing, then it is an error on their behalf.

I don't claim to be any sort of clever when it comes to math, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the problem at hand. I'll admit, it's not a rule per se. However, in this context I stand by what I say: The lack of a clear multiplication symbol implies that the 2 and the paranthesis are a single entity.

My use of a "rule" was because I don't claim to hold enough relevance or knowledge for people to acknowledge anything I say simply because "I say so". Take it as an attempt to explain something abstract in your second language, in a field of expertise that is not your primary.

With this, I bid you adieu. 6am is probably a bad time to discuss math.

 

[SageSays]

My last attempt in this thread before I give up.

Heh. Good luck with that...

Since there is no visible symbol of multiplication between the 2 and the paranthesis, it MUST be a single entity, 2(9+3). The idea that you must put paranthesis around it holds no weight, as I can just as well say that you must put a paranthesis around 48/2 for the 288 answer to be correct. It's not a matter of poorly written or lacking paranthesis, it's a matter of poor reading comprehension.

Had it been 48/2*(9+3), then it's correct that there is a problem. But, it's not. It's clearly there, in the title. No multiplication symbol. It's a single entity. It must be treated first, resulting in (2*9)+(2*3) = 24, thus making the answer 2. The entire question is based on this. This is THE question. Can you see this? Do you know this? And unless this was a question thought up by a moron in his mom's basement, I can't see any reason this would not be made EXACTLY to test people on this rule, that if you omit a multiplication symbol it's because they're a single entity. Just like 4X = 4*X, but because you treat them as a single entity you omit the multiplication symbol.

Jarl has it right. Where it is not explicitly stated all equations after a division sign are to be considered a whole equation, basically given their own brackets. By not providing any explicit operators after the division the equation reads 48/(2(9+3)).
Jarl even provides a step by step breakdown for solving the equation.

You multiply into the parenthesis, as such:
2*(9+3) = (2*9)+(2*3) = 18+6 = 24

You can't divide by a single number in the denominator and leave out the rest. Everything "above" the division and everything "below" the division.

I hope ... this is a clear and easy matter of calculating it using your brain, not a standard formula.

48/2(9+3) = 48/(2*9)+(2*3) = 48/18+6 = 48/24 = 2

Anything else is incorrect.

A win from clear thinking, and much loss from rote education. Poor Aunt Sally Doesn't Master Equations.

It is interesting to note how rote learning affects interactions with things like Google and calculators. I suspect the calculators got the answer wrong because they were asked the wrong question. Nobody said they were smart.

Edit;

Actually, the parenthesis is a clear sign. If there are no other symbols (or a parenthesized portion isn't noticeably used as an exponent), the parenthesis stands for multiplication.

No argument there.

Let's take your 4X = 4*X example, and slightly modify it to 1/4x. Now, as we look at this, it is the same as 1/4 * x, however you are trying to claim it equal to 1/(4x). Because there is not anything to specialize that the x is in the denominator, the default methodology used by mathematicians the world over is that it is multiplied. When you "omit" a multiplication sign, it doesn't make them a single entry. 1/4x = 1/4 * x 1/(4x)

A very necessary distinction to make when dealing with vectors, or polar mathematics, as there are great differences in these equations. It is also appropriate for tensor equations but this is simple arithmetic with an algebraic component.

Another way to go about this, is simply substitution. Say that (9+3) = x. Now we have 48/2x = 24x, because nowhere does it say that x is being used to divide, because the mathematical equation is written purely left to write and therefore defaults to multiplication. If this was handwritten as 48/(2x) and someone translated it to 48/2x not realizing what they were doing, then it is an error on their behalf.

If we substitute (x+y) instead, we get 48/2x + 2y. Following your logic that makes the answer 48/18+6 = 8.6r or eight and two thirds, which doesn't seem to be an acceptable solution; neither 2 nor 288.

Trust me. As someone who has a college degree in math and is working on their PhD.

I don't have to, it's maths so I can check for myself. Let's hope that you're in theoretical math like string theory, so you never have to run into real world issues like these.

Anyway, I know the answer. It's 42. Maybe you're looking at the wrong question?

That's what SageSays

 

[rees263]

My gut instinct tells me the answer should be 2. Obviously if this solution was hand written there would be zero ambiguity. A quick glance would lead me to believe that the 2(9+3) should be treated together, so 48/24=2.

However if you took a step back and wrote it out as such: 48/2(9+3) = 48 * 1/2 * (9+3) then that would come out 288.

In reality, if someone presented me with that problem I would tell them to stop being a dick and write it legibly. Even after completing a degree in mathematics I've never been expected to solve such a problem (ie a broken one).

 

[Spadge]

I was taught that division signs, '/', count as being a grouping symbol. Ergo, using that logic you would wind up with 48 over top of 2*(9+3), which would be better clarified as 48/(2*(9+3)).

It all depends on the order that you think it should be done in. Without clarification, it all depends on how YOUR math teacher taught you.

Interesting that you mention the implied grouping. In all the mathematics that I've done, the implication has been the reverse. That is, that the implied grouping is around the term immediately before and immediately after the division symbol.

a/b sin(c) = (a/b)*sin(c) =/= a/(b*sin(c)).

Every piece of software I have at my immediate disposal agrees with this interpretion. Answer is 288.

EDIT:

In reality, if someone presented me with that problem I would tell them to stop being a dick and write it legibly. Even after completing a degree in mathematics I've never been expected to solve such a problem (ie a broken one).

With most of a degree in engineering, I agree. If I had to answer it, there'd be a note in the corner from me saying "Ambiguous:- I interpreted equation as ()".

 

[mew4ever23]

I was taught BEDMAS, PEMDAS must be foreign

That's what I'm thinking too.

[sub]The Escapist keeps nomming my posts.[/sub]

PEMDAS is the same as BEDMAS - They just swapped "Brackets" for "Parentheses".

 

[XzarTheMad]

How did you get that the 2 in multiplied into both the 9 and the 3?

I use a rule of math. Don't ask me why, I'm no professor (although I'm sure one of the ones in here would be happy to oblige you), but it goes as follows:

x*(y+z) = (x*y)+(x*z)

 

[Littlee300]

I go on the escapist to procrastinate my math homework.
....
....
....
Anyone who says 2 is a dumbass

How did you get that the 2 in multiplied into both the 9 and the 3?

I use a rule of math. Don't ask me why, I'm no professor (although I'm sure one of the ones in here would be happy to oblige you), but it goes as follows:

x*(y+z) = (x*y)+(x*z)

That is called distributive property.

 

[Frosted89]

I get 288, I can see how people would get 2 though depending on how it's interpreted, however I see the question as this 48/2*(9+3) and seeing the question as that, I get 288.

48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
=288
Gah can't believe I am debating an 8th grade math problem...well, actually, compared to other things that people fuss over this isn't that bad.

 

[XzarTheMad]

I go on the escapist to procrastinate my math homework.
....
....
....
Anyone who says 288 is a dumbass

How did you get that the 2 in multiplied into both the 9 and the 3?

I use a rule of math. Don't ask me why, I'm no professor (although I'm sure one of the ones in here would be happy to oblige you), but it goes as follows:

x*(y+z) = (x*y)+(x*z)

That is called distributive property.

Thanks. Second language and all. I know as much of English math terms as I do Cantonese ones.