48÷2(9+3)

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by jonesyedxr6

Ah but the '2' in is no more attached to the '(9+3)' than the '48' is attached to the '2', i see what you mean though but 2(9+3) is still exactly the same as 2 x (9+3)

But the 2 without a written operation to me implies a single function and has to be treated that way - ie, twice the value inside the brackets. 2 x (9+3) is two functions.

As stated, the equation can be interpreted in two different ways which puts the onus on the person who wrote the equation to clear up the ambiguity.

[noosacuda]

I'm old,just worked it out in my head. Answer IS 2
Never heard of bombas,bodmas,bimbo.....whatever the hell you guys are on about!

[shedcoupe]

OT but useful -

how to do a 'squared' symbol - hold 'Alt' and press 0 then 1 then 7 then 8
'cubed' Alt 0179
'to the power of zero' - Alt 167
'degree' (as in 37°) - Alt 0176 or Alt 248

There's a heap more if you google this.

[auxr]

Originally Posted by shedcoupe

actually the equation is E = mc²

You shedcoupe have won the black jelly bean for this afternoon - that was my mind f@###k sent out into the ether,didn't think any one would pick it up.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by jonesyedxr6

Ah but the '2' in is no more attached to the '(9+3)' than the '48' is attached to the '2', i see what you mean though but 2(9+3) is still exactly the same as 2 x (9+3)

Using Wolfram which demonstrates my point. Replace the numbers with variables;

[Black F6]

answer is 2

[jonesyedxr6]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Using Wolfram which demonstrates my point. Replace the numbers with variables;

Up to the stage of

a
---
b(c+d)

is all well and fine, but once (c+d) are added to make say 'e' you are left with

a
---
be

or

a
-- * e
b

which is exactly the same as

a ÷ b * e

- Just because the 'b' and 'e' can be written under the 'a', does not mean that they are multiplied first.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Rodp

But the 2 without a written operation to me implies a single function and has to be treated that way - ie, twice the value inside the brackets. 2 x (9+3) is two functions.

Those who've spent a decent amount of time with equations would agree that's the correct method of calculation.

[jonesyedxr6]

Oh wait, how is

a
-- (c+d)
b

the same as

a
----
b(c+d)

anyway?

It should be..

a (c+d)
-- x -----
b...... 1

which equals

a (c+d)
------
b

[shedcoupe]

Originally Posted by auxr

You shedcoupe have won the black jelly bean for this afternoon - that was my mind f@###k sent out into the ether,didn't think any one would pick it up.

Thank you ! I'm just a dumb tradie but know more about nuclear physics than I should .............

[Iggypoppin']

I'm going to start a physics/maths thread now, awesome stuff!

[Dave_Obsession]

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

I'm going to start a physics/maths thread now, awesome stuff!

Dear God, please don't!

[TadKa]

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

I'm going to start a physics/maths thread now, awesome stuff!

Nooooooooooooooooooooo

Oh yeah. And the Plane DOES take off.

[xtremerus]

I go with the answer of 2

[kenz]

I go with 2

the 2(12) still needs the brackets removed before you divide it with the 48, if it was 48/2x(9+3) then it would be 288

[shedcoupe]

Originally Posted by TadKa

Nooooooooooooooooooooo

Oh yeah. And the Plane DOES take off.

What plane ?

Now, here's an argument starter -
I say that wings 'blow' ie. that they push air down so that the plane is pushed up, and that the airfoil cross-section is there merely to reduce drag.
Others say that wings 'suck' ('lift').
Rubbish. If that were true, a stunt plane could not fly upside down without being 'sucked' onto the ground.

Commence the battle.

[pulpist]

th_headhurts.gif

[cs123]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Stolen from the original thread.

I read the question as X2. After reading a whole lot of responses, I believe the answer can be obtained both ways due to the ambiguity of how the question is notated.

To me, both answers are valid due to the ambiguity of the question.

Exactly, the original equation can be parsed two ways. Love the screen shot of the two TIs with different answers!!!

[MITCHAY]

Lol funny I've asked 3 people so far being my brother, his mate and mums BF and none of them can even interpret the question correctly so far let alone get an answer. I asked mum and she said 288 and she was born '59.

For shits and giggles I put the equation in a Java compiler (substituting divide symbol for / since that is division symbol internally to a computer)

48/2(9+3) = compiler error
48/2*(9+3)=288
48/(2*(9+3))=2
48/(2(9+3)) = compiler error

At the very least Java does not even understand the equation as it is written. I had to explicitly add in the multiplication symbol

I tried command line

C:\>set /a 48/2(9+3) = missing operator
C:\>set /a 48/2*(9+3) = 288
C:\>set /a 48/(2*(9+3)) = 2
C:\>set /a 48/(2(9+3)) = unbalanced parenthesis

It will only make sense to coders, but thought it might be fun ;)

[auxr]

Originally Posted by shedcoupe

What plane ?

Now, here's an argument starter -
I say that wings 'blow' ie. that they push air down so that the plane is pushed up, and that the airfoil cross-section is there merely to reduce drag.
Others say that wings 'suck' and that they generate 'lift'.
Rubbish. If that were true, a stunt plane could not fly upside down without being 'sucked' onto the ground.

Commence the battle.

I think the propeller may have something to do with it, but I'm sure the OP's original equation could also be factored in somehow to come to an answer.

[shedcoupe]

Originally Posted by auxr

I think the propeller may have something to do with it,

This plane is jet-powered.

Incidentally, wings are usually pitched 'up' a bit relative to the fuselage centreline - if they were parallel they would 'suck' more if they did actually 'suck'.

And yes, the image of the two calculators is priceless.

[auxr]

Originally Posted by shedcoupe

This plane is jet-powered.

.

Nope sorry, my plane has a propeller and is covered in canvas.

I think this may be the end of this thread.

[NC1183]

How the hell do you end up with 288.

To work this out, you get

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

[EB#]

..............................
2

[Iggypoppin']

In response to the plane/treadmill conundrum, build the treadmill big enough, then we will talk.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Lol funny I've asked 3 people so far being my brother, his mate and mums BF and none of them can even interpret the question correctly so far let alone get an answer. I asked mum and she said 288 and she was born '59.

For shits and giggles I put the equation in a Java compiler (substituting divide symbol for / since that is division symbol internally to a computer)

48/2(9+3) = compiler error
48/2*(9+3)=288
48/(2*(9+3))=2
48/(2(9+3)) = compiler error

At the very least Java does not even understand the equation as it is written. I had to explicitly add in the multiplication symbol

I tried command line

C:\>set /a 48/2(9+3) = missing operator
C:\>set /a 48/2*(9+3) = 288
C:\>set /a 48/(2*(9+3)) = 2
C:\>set /a 48/(2(9+3)) = unbalanced parenthesis

It will only make sense to coders, but thought it might be fun ;)

Yep, that works too.

[flappist]

There seem to be a huge number of "experts" on here but Geez Louise has demonstrated the only ACTUAL proof.

Microsoft Excel says 288.

If this were not true and Excel gave a WRONG answer on this or infact ANYTHING the RSNMC (Royal Society for Nailing Microsoft to a Cross a.k.a. google, apple et. al. natural habitat of the Sheldon Cooper clones) would have raped them both publically and financially while Rippem, Quickly and Runaway Lawyers at Law would already have multiple class actions underway......

[ST]

Originally Posted by NC1183

How the hell do you end up with 288.

To work this out, you get

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

To work it out correctly you isolate the two equations and then multiply them together:

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

Logical, (much more) simple and also correct.

[jonesyedxr6]

Originally Posted by NC1183

How the hell do you end up with 288.

To work this out, you get

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

incorrect.

If you want to expand like you demonstrated above ie. a(b+c) = ab + ac then you have to do it this way

48 ÷ 2(9+3)

= (48/2) * 9 + (48/2) * 3

= 216 + 72

= 288

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by NC1183

How the hell do you end up with 288.

To work this out, you get

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

why would you split one equation ( 48/2) and create two new ones (2*9, 2*3) when the bracketed digits are obviously solved first before continuing the equation as written...?