48÷2(9+3) - Page 12

burnz · 17-04-2011, 05:15 PM

i was taught brackets first but remained in the same position, as it's a single line equation..
then L>>>R

xr6turbo2005 · 17-04-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

i saw the thread and thought how hard can that be, so clicked on it and saw 11 pages!!

seems this is going through all the forums around the net at the moment.

if the equation was written as 48÷2x(9+3) what would be the correct answer ???
I goggled the equation and got an answer of 288, but dont think that is correct. I found this example and based on it the answer is definitely 2. From my memory of school, the correct order of operation is to do the 2(12) before the 48÷2 which is confirmed below.

"this next example displays an issue that almost never arises but, when it does, there seems to be no end to the arguing.

Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1.
16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 (**)
= 16 ÷ 4 + 1
= 4 + 1
= 5

The confusing part in the above calculation is how "16 divided by 2[2] + 1" (in the line marked with the double-star) becomes "16 divided by 4 + 1", instead of "8 times by 2 + 1". That's because, even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses outrank division, so the first 2 goes with the [2], rather than with the "16 divided by". That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication."

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm

NC1183 · 17-04-2011, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Yeah, you're right, BODMAS is correct, I never disputed that...

I'll ask you the same question that I asked Stefan (which he never actually answered either)...if you are in fact the ONLY correct answer...

Why does EVERYTHING I OWN...indicate the answer is 288...?

My teacher may have taught me (and many others here) the wrong thing, but I really would like to see you argue with Sony, Casio, et. al.

I'll be waiting when you both figure it out...

Because they must be cheap calculators, that do not understand or use either Direct Algebraic Logic or Mathematical Sequencing

NC1183 · 17-04-2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xr6turbo2005

seems this is going through all the forums around the net at the moment.

if the equation was written as 48÷2x(9+3) what would be the correct answer ???
I goggled the equation and got an answer of 288, but dont think that is correct. I found this example and based on it the answer is definitely 2. From my memory of school, the correct order of operation is to do the 2(12) before the 48÷2 which is confirmed below.

I would have the answer at 288.

ST · 17-04-2011, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

There is a hierarchy that is applicable to all equations that is absolute left to right only applies after taking this hierarchy into account so all calculation in the same level of the hierarchy are performed let to right .
I will give you a scenario to contemplate. a nuclear reactor is designed using a number of equations that use correct mathematical principal (BOMDAS) and this is handed over to someone who has a poor understanding of correct mathematical procedure to construct this results in components required for reactor safety to be of the incorrect specs the reactor is built and as soon as it is put under load it goes into meltdown and wiped out 5 million people all because he just went left to right
In my trade if you calculate incorrectly you can end up with an unsafe electrical installation putting people and infrastructure at risk. So maybe you understand the importance of hierarchy of calculations
I design databases and maintaining this hierarchy is difficult or impossible in a single query at times so I then either use multiple queries daisy chained to achieve a correct result or rework the calculation so it can be performed in the correct order when this is a viable option

Your over explanation of extremely simple mathematical precedence is a poor diversion from your original statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

this left to right principal has never been a valid mathematical principal

This is unequivocally wrong.

FGII-XR6 · 17-04-2011, 05:51 PM

it is different as one methodology is wrong with the equation how can any inteligent person say that a mathematical equation can ahve a different result depending on how you want to execute it a mathematical equation is absolute with only one intended result. if it was open to interpretation all mathematical equations that are used to engineer our modern wirld would become useless whis you must admit is stupidity in the extreme

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sezzy

It's actually not different at all, and as has been previously stated, dependent on which methodology is used to calculate the equation (bearing in mind that there are two)...the resulting answer will depend on how you've been taught.

Stefan · 17-04-2011, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

how can any inteligent person say that a mathematical equation can ahve a different result depending on how you want to execute it a mathematical equation is absolute with only one intended result.

Because they are not intelligent, they simply regurgitate what is on the net.

Learning via Google and Micosoft is having a detrimental affect on students, some can simply not be reasoned with all because Google said so.

burnz · 17-04-2011, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

Because they are not intelligent, they simply regurgitate what is on the net.

Learning via Google and Micosoft is having a detrimental affect on students, some can simply not be reasoned with all because Google said so.

no such thing as google or a calculator when i whent to school..
the only thing close was a chinise abacus..
everything else was drum/drilled into your head!!

SEZ213 · 17-04-2011, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NC1183

Because they must be cheap calculators, that do not understand or use either Direct Algebraic Logic or Mathematical Sequencing

Tell you what, those who believe it's 2, can go right ahead and believe what they want...

If any of your teacher's are in Mensa, I might believe it, until that point in time, I'm going to go with Geez Louise's mate...and stick with 288.

SEZ213 · 17-04-2011, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

Because they are not intelligent, they simply regurgitate what is on the net.

Learning via Google and Micosoft is having a detrimental affect on students, some can simply not be reasoned with all because Google said so.

Calling someone unintelligent doesn't make you smart...it just makes you obnoxious.

If you can quantify your answer by finding me at least 10 peer reviewed articles proving that you're right and everything else in the world is a ********, I'll actually believe you....

FGII-XR6 · 17-04-2011, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Calling someone unintelligent doesn't make you smart...it just makes you obnoxious.

If you can quantify your answer by finding me at least 10 peer reviewed articles proving that you're right and everything else in the world is a ********, I'll actually believe you....

You need no such thing when trade and engineering principals rely on correct use of equations, the only acceptable method in these essential areas is BOMDAS. Or are you saying engineering principals are all wrong? If so would that not bring intelligence into question?
I’ll tell you what I’ll send an electrician to wire your house based on the flawed incorrect mathematical principals you cling to and we’ll see how safe you will feel
Or how about we put you in a car with all the safety features including the braking capacity designed by an engineer using the same flawed mathematics would you feel safe driving it knowing the equations used to design the car were based on a different (correct) mathematical principal?
To put it in perspective say the equation in question is to determine how many of a particular machine can safely be supported by a circuit by using your flawed maths you would assume that it was safe to connect 288 where there should be only 2 see the danger?

SEZ213 · 17-04-2011, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

You need no such thing when trade and engineering principals rely on correct use of equations, the only acceptable method in these essential areas is BOMDAS. Or are you saying engineering principals are all wrong? if so that would that not bring intelligence into question?
I’ll tell you what I’ll send an electrician to wire your house based on the flawed incorrect mathematical principals you cling to and we’ll see how safe you will feel
Or how about we put you in a car with all the safety features including the braking capacity designed by an engineer using the same flawed mathematics would you feel safe driving it knowing the equations used to design the car were based on a different (correct) mathematical principal?

I'm sorry, I kind of zoned out just then...

I've got a small news flash for you - all university information is based on peer reviewed articles - been there, done that...annoying as hell to be honest, but unfortunately, in this world, that's how you tend to prove you're right...

As far as I know (given everything in my life is telling me so) the answer is still 288.

If, as you so correctly pointed out, all these industries rely on it - there will be something...

I've actually tried to search to see if perhaps I am wrong - but still nada...

FGII-XR6 · 17-04-2011, 06:51 PM

To put it in perspective say the equation in question is to determine how many of a particular machine can safely be supported by a circuit by using your flawed maths you would assume that it was safe to connect 288 where there should be only 2 see the danger? don't tell me I am guessing what trades use I am an electrician and all trade textbooks use correct maths

Rodp · 17-04-2011, 06:54 PM

Just when I thought this was all sorted.

There is no universally accepted method to calculate this poorly written equation.

Depending on who taught you and/or what industry you work in, the answer can be 2 or it can be 288. Accept it and move on. Sheesh.

ST · 17-04-2011, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

your flawed maths

Irony overload.

Have any of you stopped and thought "hmm this debate has been going on for quite some time now, with no single agreed upon answer. It has spread through countless areas of the internet and through countless people of all walks of life. Each side has qualified experts defending their answer with a proven method. Perhaps the flaw is in the format of the equation and therefore numerous conclusions can be drawn from it."

ZDI-970 · 17-04-2011, 07:01 PM

i think we need a poll! haha

burnz · 17-04-2011, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

To put it in perspective say the equation in question is to determine how many of a particular machine can safely be supported by a circuit by using your flawed maths you would assume that it was safe to connect 288 where there should be only 2 see the danger? don't tell me I am guessing what trades use I am an electrician and all trade textbooks use correct maths

no wonder the prius is gutless!!
it's totally under powered

FGII-XR6 · 17-04-2011, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

Irony overload.

Have any of you stopped and thought "hmm this debate has been going on for quite some time now, with no single agreed upon answer. It has spread through countless areas of the internet and through countless people of all walks of life. Each side has qualified experts defending their answer with a proven method. Perhaps the flaw is in the format of the equation and therefore numerous conclusions can be drawn from it."

Maybe but unless correct mathematics is used everything will fall apart as previously explained the only correct method can be the one that fits the equations in regular use for essential tasks

SEZ213 · 17-04-2011, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

maybe but unless correct mathematics is used everything will fall apart as previously explained the only correct method can be the one that fits the equations in regular use for essentils tasks

For this equation, there doesn't appear to be any one 'correct' method.

Instead of calling the rest of us idiots...which sounds a lot like hypocrisy...how about we just stop arguing?

351@GT · 17-04-2011, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xr6turbo2005

seems this is going through all the forums around the net at the moment.

if the equation was written as 48÷2x(9+3) what would be the correct answer ???
I goggled the equation and got an answer of 288, but dont think that is correct. I found this example and based on it the answer is definitely 2. From my memory of school, the correct order of operation is to do the 2(12) before the 48÷2 which is confirmed below.

"this next example displays an issue that almost never arises but, when it does, there seems to be no end to the arguing.

Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1.
16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 (**)
= 16 ÷ 4 + 1
= 4 + 1
= 5

The confusing part in the above calculation is how "16 divided by 2[2] + 1" (in the line marked with the double-star) becomes "16 divided by 4 + 1", instead of "8 times by 2 + 1". That's because, even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses outrank division, so the first 2 goes with the [2], rather than with the "16 divided by". That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication."

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm

read further down the page and you get this

Note that different software will process this differently; even different models of Texas Instruments graphing calculators will process this differently. In cases of ambiguity, be very careful of your parentheses, and make your meaning clear. The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!

Deco28 · 17-04-2011, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Yeah, you're right, BODMAS is correct, I never disputed that...

I'll ask you the same question that I asked Stefan (which he never actually answered either)...if you are in fact the ONLY correct answer...

Why does EVERYTHING I OWN...indicate the answer is 288...?

My teacher may have taught me (and many others here) the wrong thing, but I really would like to see you argue with Sony, Casio, et. al.

I'll be waiting when you both figure it out...

Pretty simple my friend. I may not have studied math beyond high school, but all throughout high school, it is not uncommon at all to have to input an equation into a calculator different to what is on the paper. The equation is their for you to interpret correctly before inputting it into the calculator and in this case you must interpret it correctly using the rule BOMDAS.

SEZ213 · 17-04-2011, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deco28

Pretty simple my friend. I may not have studied math beyond high school, but all throughout high school, it is not uncommon at all to have to input an equation into a calculator different to what is on the paper. The equation is their for you to interpret correctly before inputting it into the calculator and in this case you must interpret it correctly using the rule BOMDAS.

that is all...

Deco28 · 17-04-2011, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sezzy

that is all...

The feeling is reciprocated.

FGII-XR6 · 17-04-2011, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 351@GT

read further down the page and you get this

Note that different software will process this differently; even different models of Texas Instruments graphing calculators will process this differently. In cases of ambiguity, be very careful of your parentheses, and make your meaning clear. The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!

very well put it is true that it is hard to get software to calculate correctly I often pull my hair out trying to sort a query out sometimes needing daisy chained queries to do the calc in stages

ST · 17-04-2011, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

Maybe but unless correct mathematics is used everything will fall apart as previously explained the only correct method can be the one that fits the equations in regular use for essential tasks

Correct mathematics is used on both sides. That is the point.

FGII-XR6 · 17-04-2011, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

Correct mathematics is used on both sides. That is the point.

so you are saying if all engineering equations are based on BOMDAS it is still correct to use BODMAS?

Geez Louise · 17-04-2011, 08:22 PM

Whats this thread about now?? Surely not the same question?...Or is it just a few trying to argue/force their point on others?

I think this thread has run it's course...

NC1183 · 17-04-2011, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

so you are saying if all engineering equations are based on BOMDAS it is still correct to use BODMAS?

BOMDAS or BODMAS, either or works, it is "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations, that is causing the problem, as Google and Microsoft Office (Excel) can't calculate it or with it.

Well, that is, unless my multimeter and Megger tester are faulty, which i find hard to believe as they have just come back from calibration, and my voltage drop and fault-loop impedance equations have come back to me with the same results, multiplying by juxtaposition, as what i see on my test equipment, which would be the same for you au3xr6

kenz · 17-04-2011, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geez Louise

Whats this thread about now?? Surely not the same question?...Or is it just a few trying to argue/force their point on others?

I think this thread has run it's course...

some people just can't move on

ST · 17-04-2011, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

so you are saying if all engineering equations are based on BOMDAS it is still correct to use BODMAS?

No, I am saying poorly written equations such as this can (and do) result in more than one correct solution.

Also your gross misconception of mnemonic acronyms is not helping your credibility.