48÷2(9+3) = ????

[Sisk]

And not to pile on, but "both answers" aren't right. It's 288. You do it left to right with mult/div, basic order of operations. If you picked 2, you're wrong.

As for why the calculator said 2, it's a weirdly written problem

Well, that's settled.

[Hooks]

This thread gave me a headache just reading all this math , algebra!

[baseline bum]

This thread gave me a headache just reading all this math , algebra!

That's arithmetic, not algebra.

[Norcal's MathTeacher]

I was looking forward to the day when dear Norcal and I could explore the maths. What a pity he could never get past simple addition and subtraction.

[Wild Cobra]

If you use PEMDAS, it's 2. But, there's plenty of argument out there for 288.

The 2 is not inside the parenthesis. It would be the same as 48÷2x(9+3). For the answer to be 2, it would have to be written 48÷(2(9+3)).

[Wild Cobra]

Why can't people just write it in the clear form of 48 2 ÷ 9 3 + * ???

Easy then...

48 2 ÷ 9 3 + *
24 9 3 + *
24 12 *
288

Algebratic notation is different. they mixed the form which I don't like. Times and variable "X" get confusing.

[Darrin]

288. Work left to right. Jeez.

[sonic21]

48÷2(9+3)=288

you always have to start at the left side after dealing the the parenthesis

[Borosai]

I'm out of touch with my math side.

[BruceBowenFan]

The answer is 2.

9+3 is 12. 12*2 is 24. 48/24 is two.

[Isitjustme?]

Its 2 using

Please

Excuse

My

Dear

Aunt

Sally

[Isitjustme?]

PEMDAS for beginners...

[dimsah]

PEMDAS states that operations of the same rank go left to right. Regardless of their position in the acronym, division and multiplication have the same rank.

The answer is 288.

[Wild Cobra]

PEMDAS states that operations of the same rank go left to right. Regardless of their position in the acronym, division and multiplication have the same rank.

The answer is 288.

Correct.

48 ÷ 2(9+3)

becomes

48 ÷ 2 X (9+3)

becomes

48 ÷ 2 X 12

[Sense]

Wow there's 3 pages of people explaining the idiots who keep saying 2.. why it's not 2... and yet they keep saying 2 lol

[romad_20]

This is pretty basic stuff, its 288. God help us all...

[Dex]

This is all Mrs. Morris' fault.

[MannyIsGod]

Wow there's 3 pages of people explaining the idiots who keep saying 2.. why it's not 2... and yet they keep saying 2 lol

I was thinking the same thing. Some people are just ing stupid man.

[Venti Quattro]

It's 288. Really simple math. For it to be 2, the number 2 has to be enclosed too.

[baseline bum]

I was thinking the same thing. Some people are just ing stupid man.

Both interpretations are commonly seen in mathematical literature. The reason you're seeing different answers is because the problem is ambiguous; not because people are stupid.

[Venti Quattro]

Both interpretations are commonly seen in mathematical literature. The reason you're seeing different answers is because the problem is ambiguous; not because people are stupid.

It's not ambiguous. There is a set of defined rules that can solve this problem.

[baseline bum]

It's not ambiguous. There is a set of defined rules that can solve this problem.

It is ambiguous; its meaning is determined from context. Like I said earlier in the thread, it's clear what expressions like these two mean from context, not from hard and fast rules that some 6th grade teacher told you:

∫ x dx = 1/2x^2 + C

1/2 + 1/6 + 1/12 + 1/20 + 1/30 + ... + 1/n(n+1) + ...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Now if you used a notation like prefix (like LISP uses) or Postfix (like Postscript does), there would be no way to make it ambiguous. If you showed the expression as a parse tree, then it could not be ambiguous.

[Fpoonsie]

It is ambiguous; its meaning is determined from context. Like I said earlier in the thread, it's clear what expressions like these two mean from context, not from hard and fast rules that some 6th grade teacher told you:

∫ x dx = 1/2x^2 + C

1/2 + 1/6 + 1/12 + 1/20 + 1/30 + ... + 1/n(n+1) + ...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Now if you used a notation like prefix (like LISP uses) or Postfix (like Postscript does), there would be no way to make it ambiguous. If you showed the expression as a parse tree, then it could not be ambiguous.

[MannyIsGod]

Both interpretations are commonly seen in mathematical literature. The reason you're seeing different answers is because the problem is ambiguous; not because people are stupid.

Except its been explained time and time again in this thread and people STILL come in and say 2.

[ChuckD]

PEMDAS, done left to right. It's 288.

BTW, even if I didn't program for a living and understand the importance of order of operations, the fact that bb says 288 and Ashbeigh says 2 would automatically put me in the 288 camp.