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

[Slimshad]

Order of operations is fine and dandy but what if 2 was a coefficient of (9+3). 2*9 and 2*3 is 24. 48 divided by 24 is 2. You see, if the equation was 48/2X, and X = (12), you wouldn't say "alright, lets divide that 42 by the 2 and then multiply that by X (12)."

EDIT: I read it initially as 48 *over* 2(12). My bad. You do it left to right.

 

[Bon_Clay]

I don't see why people are assuming / means everything after is the denominator. When you're not writing by hand that just means divide the preceding term by the following one.

Secondly when a number is right beside stuff in parenthesis, its implied it just mean multiply. That doesn't make it a separate term from the 48 unless you add more brackets in.

I understand what people are interpreting the question as in order to get the other answer, but its my opinion that when written the way it is you would normally use "/" just as "÷". On a keyboard that is the best substitution you have.

 

[thelonewolf266]

288.
I use BOMDAS
(brackets orders multiplication division addition subtraction)
and it has the word "BOMB" in it!

Missing a 'B' there.

Nah he just had the M and the D the wrong way round.

 

[floobie]

This is only causing a stir because it's poorly written. It isn't clever or some "mind-bender" of a problem. It's just ambiguous. So... who cares?

 

[Syntax Error]

288. Stuff inside parentheses are first priority. Multiplication and Division have the same priority, so evaluate from left to right in order of appearance. Same goes with Addition and Subtraction.

 

[Mayki5]

The software I find to hand on the interwebs, re-parses the equation, and actually calculates a different one to what is asked. A sci calculator, should calculate it, exactly as inputted. Mine, for instance gave the answer of 2. Despite, inputting the same equation into various other software, and getting 288.

 

[jp201]

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.

If what he just said apparently went right over your head then please just give up at this point.

for god sakes your quote after reading what he was trying to convey to you "The lack of a clear multiplication symbol implies that the 2 and the paranthesis are a single entity." he just proved with logic that your statement there is false. Yes it is completely relevant to this problem by the way.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

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).

What makes you think this is a single fraction? There is nothing in the problem to indicate that. If we translate the problem directly into English, we get "Multiply 48 by the multiplicative inverse of 2 and then multiply by the quantity (9+3)." The division sign only applies to the next term (i.e. 2) and not to everything to the right.

 

[thelonewolf266]

This is only causing a stir because it's poorly written. It isn't clever or some "mind-bender" of a problem. It's just ambiguous. So... who cares?

I'm sorry but generally speaking maths problems can't be ambiguous they follow a set of rules you just need to know the rules.I say generally because I didn't do it at uni and there's quite probably some complicated stuff that comes into it that I know nothing about which could be an exception to that rule.

 

[Conza]

According to BODMAS (Brackets, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction) the answer is 288. I don't see how you can get 2...

48/2 x (9+3)| 48/2 x (12) | 24 x (12) | 288

So incorrectly, some might do... umm BOMDAS?

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

The first example is correct (now to read why 100/240 did theirs wrong).

 

[Fullmetal X]

This is only causing a stir because it's poorly written. It isn't clever or some "mind-bender" of a problem. It's just ambiguous. So... who cares?

Quoted for truth.

It's pretty sad just how heated up some people are getting over this.

 

[Vrach]

This gives us 48/2(12).

2(12) means exactly the same as '2 x 12', which gives 24. We do this step next because of the 'multiplication' part, which comes next in the BODMAS order.

Quoting where you've gone wrong. You're saying BODMAS, to emphasise, boDMas and saying multiplication comes next before division.

Can check via Google calculator as well if you want. It's 288.

 

[DefunctTheory]

288.
I use BOMDAS
(brackets orders multiplication division addition subtraction)
and it has the word "BOMB" in it!

Missing a 'B' there.

Nah he just had the M and the D the wrong way round.

I was just referring to the fact that there's no Bomb in there, one way or another.

But, yah. How did I miss that too?

 

[jp201]

According to BODMAS (Brackets, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction) the answer is 288. I don't see how you can get 2...

48/2 x (9+3)| 48/2 x (12) | 24 x (12) | 288

So incorrectly, some might do... umm BOMDAS?

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

The first example is correct (now to read why 100/240 did theirs wrong).

When people see for example PEMDAS which is used in America quite often people eventually believe that multiplication happens before the division which is not that case. It is whichever comes up first from left to right. Doing it wrong would result in 2 since they would multiplied first.

Your correct and that is what I was thinking also as to why this question with an absolute answer is not highly favored on 288.

That or this is a huge troll thread.

 

[XzarTheMad]

If what he just said apparently went right over your head then please just give up at this point.

for god sakes your quote after reading what he was trying to convey to you "The lack of a clear multiplication symbol implies that the 2 and the paranthesis are a single entity." he just proved with logic that your statement there is false. Yes it is completely relevant to this problem by the way.

I already gave up. Not that it changes my mind. And I do realize he's correct - I never faulted his logic. I tried to explain the way I see the problem, which I still stand by as the only reasonable and logical solution, to people who were not professors in math. Was what I was saying not 100% accurate? No. I freely admit that. Can't fault me for trying, though. Or, I guess you can. If it helps you sleep at night, I suppose.

Congratulations. You "win" by default. I'll go sleep. Me and my "superior Denmark math".

 

[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).

What makes you think this is a single fraction? There is nothing in the problem to indicate that. If we translate the problem directly into English, we get "Multiply 48 by the multiplicative inverse of 2 and then multiply by the quantity (9+3)." The division sign only applies to the next term (i.e. 2) and not to everything to the right.

I mentioned in another post I study university-level maths. The fraction continues, because the 2(9+3) is implied to be 2*(9+3) by the conventions of modern mathematical writing. The way that mathematicians nowadays write fractions, formulae and equations of this sort, including the way I was taught, shows that the fraction is correct in the way I interpreted it, as having 48 as the numerator and 2*(3+9) as the denominator.

And for the record, I learnt all this from a guy named Kevin Houston, at the University of Leeds (UK). He just so happens to have written a book called 'How To Write Like A Mathematician', which he seems to take every opportunity to plug during lectures. Here's the link to the Amazon page, as my source...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Think-Like-Mathematician-Undergraduate/dp/052171978X

 

[MagusVulpes]

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).

What makes you think this is a single fraction? There is nothing in the problem to indicate that. If we translate the problem directly into English, we get "Multiply 48 by the multiplicative inverse of 2 and then multiply by the quantity (9+3)." The division sign only applies to the next term (i.e. 2) and not to everything to the right.

Unless it's interpreted as "Multiply 48 by the multiplicative inverse of 2 times the quantity of 9 plus 3." Which would be where the debate lies. The a(x+y) has to be dealt with as though it's a single entity becoming (ax+ay) through the distributive property. If it read 48/2*(9+3) then we could say that the 48/2 and (9+3) are separate entities, but without the '*' it's implied that 2(9+3) is a single entity and exists 'under' the division symbol (if written as a fraction).

 

[TetrisLing]

The equation as written is ambiguous at best and deliberately misleading at worst. The problem here is that internet does not allow proper mathematical typesetting. So I fired up Mathematica.

http://twitpic.com/4i5yam

Glad this is all settled now.

 

[Pyro Paul]

You are all Wrong... the Answer is 'Cake'

 

[thelonewolf266]

288.
I use BOMDAS
(brackets orders multiplication division addition subtraction)
and it has the word "BOMB" in it!

Missing a 'B' there.

Nah he just had the M and the D the wrong way round.

I was just referring to the fact that there's no Bomb in there, one way or another.

But, yah. How did I miss that too?

There are loads of different versions for different countries or even just different schools so its easy to get confused I have always been taught and used BODMAS as in brackets,orders, division and multiplication,Addition and subtraction.

Orders(Powers and square roots just in case anyone didn't know and possibly a few other things I'm not sure)