48÷2(9+3) = ???

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by Biggie62

Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah

Originally Posted by Biggie62

I have a Math Econ and Finance degree and from solving problems like this in classes for the major and minor I'd definitely be in the crew that says 2. Because there are more than enough problems that we solved that would be solved in such a way where you distribute to the parenthesis first and then solve afterwards with order of operations.

By distributing to the parenthesis you break the order. If the problem was 48/(2(9+3)) then the answer would eventually be 2. The 48 being first in order gives it the right to divide by 2.

No because you're distributing which takes preference. 

distributing is a product of pemdas, its not some new rule, distributing only applies when theres an addition, subtraction, or nothing in front of the outside multiplier, in this case theres a division...  PEMD>AS

stop giving the 2 special treatment

 

[Specter]

Originally Posted by Biggie62

Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah

Originally Posted by Biggie62

I have a Math Econ and Finance degree and from solving problems like this in classes for the major and minor I'd definitely be in the crew that says 2. Because there are more than enough problems that we solved that would be solved in such a way where you distribute to the parenthesis first and then solve afterwards with order of operations.

By distributing to the parenthesis you break the order. If the problem was 48/(2(9+3)) then the answer would eventually be 2. The 48 being first in order gives it the right to divide by 2.

No because you're distributing which takes preference. 

That makes no sense. So you're saying it's ok to distribute the 2 first, when it's not in any parenthesis, before dividing the 48 which is the first left to right?

 

[Specter]

Originally Posted by Biggie62

Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah

Originally Posted by Biggie62

I have a Math Econ and Finance degree and from solving problems like this in classes for the major and minor I'd definitely be in the crew that says 2. Because there are more than enough problems that we solved that would be solved in such a way where you distribute to the parenthesis first and then solve afterwards with order of operations.

By distributing to the parenthesis you break the order. If the problem was 48/(2(9+3)) then the answer would eventually be 2. The 48 being first in order gives it the right to divide by 2.

No because you're distributing which takes preference. 

That makes no sense. So you're saying it's ok to distribute the 2 first, when it's not in any parenthesis, before dividing the 48 which is the first left to right?

 

[durden7]

No one should be calling either the 2 or 288 group stupid.

The "answer" to this problem isnt "easy".

 

[durden7]

No one should be calling either the 2 or 288 group stupid.

The "answer" to this problem isnt "easy".

 

[waystinthyme]

Originally Posted by Biggie62

Originally Posted by waystinthyme

Originally Posted by Biggie62


A simple one when you try to find GDP givin disposable income and spending habits of people.  Or when you are trying to find the DI such as (I-t) and then you have a percentage such as .6 as 60% of the DI is used to spend on something particular.  so a formula would be based something along the lines of Y=C+.6(I-t) where I-t is DI.  You'd distribute the .6 and thus get an answer. 

I don't know, in my upper level Macro econ and Math for economist classes we were doing things like this.

you can't simplify the terms in the parentheses, so you move on to the next thing in the order of operations.

PEMDAS

multiplication comes before addition, so you multiply (or distribute) the .6 by the terms in the parenthesis, then add/subtract the three terms to get your answer...

i don't see any similarities between this problem and the original problem. it's already been stated/cited multiple times that the distributive property only applies to variables, so this isn't anything new... 

-waystinthyme

Hey, you're entitled to your opinion.  However, I know that my professors taught us differently and I believe them over some random NTer.  Especially since it was multiple professors not just one.

did you read my reply, or just assume i was disagreeing with you?

there is only one way to solve the problem you posted, because there are variables in the parenthesis. distribution applies to your example, but it does not apply to the problem this thread is about.

-waystinthyme
  

 

[waystinthyme]

Originally Posted by Biggie62

Originally Posted by waystinthyme

Originally Posted by Biggie62


A simple one when you try to find GDP givin disposable income and spending habits of people.  Or when you are trying to find the DI such as (I-t) and then you have a percentage such as .6 as 60% of the DI is used to spend on something particular.  so a formula would be based something along the lines of Y=C+.6(I-t) where I-t is DI.  You'd distribute the .6 and thus get an answer. 

I don't know, in my upper level Macro econ and Math for economist classes we were doing things like this.

you can't simplify the terms in the parentheses, so you move on to the next thing in the order of operations.

PEMDAS

multiplication comes before addition, so you multiply (or distribute) the .6 by the terms in the parenthesis, then add/subtract the three terms to get your answer...

i don't see any similarities between this problem and the original problem. it's already been stated/cited multiple times that the distributive property only applies to variables, so this isn't anything new... 

-waystinthyme

Hey, you're entitled to your opinion.  However, I know that my professors taught us differently and I believe them over some random NTer.  Especially since it was multiple professors not just one.

did you read my reply, or just assume i was disagreeing with you?

there is only one way to solve the problem you posted, because there are variables in the parenthesis. distribution applies to your example, but it does not apply to the problem this thread is about.

-waystinthyme
  

 

[biggie62]

I honestly don't know how to explain it to the people who don't understand how we get 2. I just know that when I see a problem like that I automatically distribute and then go after the order of operations. It's just something that has been instilled in my head after years of math, econ, and finance classes. I can't explain it to you why I do it like that in all honesty.

 

[biggie62]

I honestly don't know how to explain it to the people who don't understand how we get 2. I just know that when I see a problem like that I automatically distribute and then go after the order of operations. It's just something that has been instilled in my head after years of math, econ, and finance classes. I can't explain it to you why I do it like that in all honesty.

 

[limitedretroog]

Originally Posted by Durden7

No one should be calling either the 2 or 288 group stupid.

The "answer" to this problem isnt "easy".

They are stupid. They are just ignoring the Orders of Operation and rules of juxtaposition and just making up their own rules and throwing in their own that doesn't apply, all while refusing to listen to logic. It's not "easy" cuz they're overanalyzing the equation and making it more difficult than it's supposed to be.

 

[limitedretroog]

Originally Posted by Durden7

No one should be calling either the 2 or 288 group stupid.

The "answer" to this problem isnt "easy".

They are stupid. They are just ignoring the Orders of Operation and rules of juxtaposition and just making up their own rules and throwing in their own that doesn't apply, all while refusing to listen to logic. It's not "easy" cuz they're overanalyzing the equation and making it more difficult than it's supposed to be.

 

[durden7]

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

Originally Posted by Durden7

No one should be calling either the 2 or 288 group stupid.

The "answer" to this problem isnt "easy".

They are stupid. They are just ignoring the Orders of Operation and rules of juxtaposition and just making up their own rules and throwing in their own that doesn't apply, all while refusing to listen to logic. It's not "easy" cuz they're overanalyzing the equation and making it more difficult than it's supposed to be.

Thats not being stupid, thats called being stubborn.

 

[durden7]

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

Originally Posted by Durden7

No one should be calling either the 2 or 288 group stupid.

The "answer" to this problem isnt "easy".

They are stupid. They are just ignoring the Orders of Operation and rules of juxtaposition and just making up their own rules and throwing in their own that doesn't apply, all while refusing to listen to logic. It's not "easy" cuz they're overanalyzing the equation and making it more difficult than it's supposed to be.

Thats not being stupid, thats called being stubborn.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by Biggie62

I honestly don't know how to explain it to the people who don't understand how we get 2. I just know that when I see a problem like that I automatically distribute and then go after the order of operations. It's just something that has been instilled in my head after years of math, econ, and finance classes. I can't explain it to you why I do it like that in all honesty.

we know how youre getting 2 and we just happen to disagree, distribution is a product of pemdas... PEMD>AS

48 + 2(9+3) ... distribute
48 - 2(9+3) ... distribute

48 ÷ 2(9+3) ... dont distribute... follow order of operations

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by Biggie62

I honestly don't know how to explain it to the people who don't understand how we get 2. I just know that when I see a problem like that I automatically distribute and then go after the order of operations. It's just something that has been instilled in my head after years of math, econ, and finance classes. I can't explain it to you why I do it like that in all honesty.

we know how youre getting 2 and we just happen to disagree, distribution is a product of pemdas... PEMD>AS

48 + 2(9+3) ... distribute
48 - 2(9+3) ... distribute

48 ÷ 2(9+3) ... dont distribute... follow order of operations

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by Biggie62

I honestly don't know how to explain it to the people who don't understand how we get 2. I just know that when I see a problem like that I automatically distribute and then go after the order of operations. It's just something that has been instilled in my head after years of math, econ, and finance classes. I can't explain it to you why I do it like that in all honesty.

There is no need to distribute though. If you were going to distribute, then how come you aren't distributing 24(9+3) ?
And if you divide by 2, it is the same thing as multiplying by .5 .
So then 48*.5(9+3) = 48*.5*12 = 288.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by Biggie62

I honestly don't know how to explain it to the people who don't understand how we get 2. I just know that when I see a problem like that I automatically distribute and then go after the order of operations. It's just something that has been instilled in my head after years of math, econ, and finance classes. I can't explain it to you why I do it like that in all honesty.

Its okay man acceptance is the first step of the process once you get past the part its will be all ok

 

[air ih zona]

I used to get 288 now I got 2 wt f?

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by Biggie62

I honestly don't know how to explain it to the people who don't understand how we get 2. I just know that when I see a problem like that I automatically distribute and then go after the order of operations. It's just something that has been instilled in my head after years of math, econ, and finance classes. I can't explain it to you why I do it like that in all honesty.

Its okay man acceptance is the first step of the process once you get past the part its will be all ok

 

[bananaboy2601]

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

Originally Posted by Durden7

No one should be calling either the 2 or 288 group stupid.

The "answer" to this problem isnt "easy".

They are stupid. They are just ignoring the Orders of Operation and rules of juxtaposition and just making up their own rules and throwing in their own that doesn't apply, all while refusing to listen to logic. It's not "easy" cuz they're overanalyzing the equation and making it more difficult than it's supposed to be.

This. Probably though college algebra was difficult. 288.

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by Biggie62

I honestly don't know how to explain it to the people who don't understand how we get 2. I just know that when I see a problem like that I automatically distribute and then go after the order of operations. It's just something that has been instilled in my head after years of math, econ, and finance classes. I can't explain it to you why I do it like that in all honesty.

There is no need to distribute though. If you were going to distribute, then how come you aren't distributing 24(9+3) ?
And if you divide by 2, it is the same thing as multiplying by .5 .
So then 48*.5(9+3) = 48*.5*12 = 288.

 

[bananaboy2601]

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

Originally Posted by Durden7

No one should be calling either the 2 or 288 group stupid.

The "answer" to this problem isnt "easy".

They are stupid. They are just ignoring the Orders of Operation and rules of juxtaposition and just making up their own rules and throwing in their own that doesn't apply, all while refusing to listen to logic. It's not "easy" cuz they're overanalyzing the equation and making it more difficult than it's supposed to be.

This. Probably though college algebra was difficult. 288.

 

[air ih zona]

I used to get 288 now I got 2 wt f?

 

[raptors29]

WOW! This is what I missed?

 

[raptors29]

WOW! This is what I missed?