48÷2(9+3) = ???

[bc2310]

Ok I fail at the internets and linked the wrong site.  Just woke up from nap. I'll take the L on that. My corrolla still says team2 and I've already posted this twice
"There are two interpretations of the equation:


1. That the multiplication of 2(9+3) carries precedence over the 48 being against the bracket (answer is 2)

and

2. That the true function before the bracket is 48/2 (answer is 28

This is apparently a mathematical quandry that math nerds joke about over lunch....the interpretation of the statement is ambiguous." 




Also no one can answer why the old div symbol is used.  That is the only reason I'm on team 2 because of the old symbol.




I also posted:

BC2310 wrote:

---

ljlukelj wrote:

---

I still don't understand team 2. It isn't please excuse distribution my dear aunt sally

I understand both sides. I'm team 2.
 Ã· vs / is the problem.

BC2310 wrote:

---

From MYALGEBRA.com




48÷2(9+3)
Simplify:

Answer:
2 



48/2(9+3)

Simplify:

Answer:
288 

So you see if the equation is written 48/2(9+3) I'm team 288 all day but how it's written with that old symbol I'm on team 2. 
So really I'm on both teams, and believe the symbol is straight troll gold.

Yeah, you still think I'm an idiot but I'm definitely more mature than than most of you 

 

[bc2310]

Ok I fail at the internets and linked the wrong site.  Just woke up from nap. I'll take the L on that. My corrolla still says team2 and I've already posted this twice
"There are two interpretations of the equation:


1. That the multiplication of 2(9+3) carries precedence over the 48 being against the bracket (answer is 2)

and

2. That the true function before the bracket is 48/2 (answer is 28

This is apparently a mathematical quandry that math nerds joke about over lunch....the interpretation of the statement is ambiguous." 




Also no one can answer why the old div symbol is used.  That is the only reason I'm on team 2 because of the old symbol.




I also posted:

BC2310 wrote:

---

ljlukelj wrote:

---

I still don't understand team 2. It isn't please excuse distribution my dear aunt sally

I understand both sides. I'm team 2.
 Ã· vs / is the problem.

BC2310 wrote:

---

From MYALGEBRA.com




48÷2(9+3)
Simplify:

Answer:
2 



48/2(9+3)

Simplify:

Answer:
288 

So you see if the equation is written 48/2(9+3) I'm team 288 all day but how it's written with that old symbol I'm on team 2. 
So really I'm on both teams, and believe the symbol is straight troll gold.

Yeah, you still think I'm an idiot but I'm definitely more mature than than most of you 

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son


that isn't how the problem is written though. you just implied that multiplication sign and brought it into the problem. don't bring any extra signs into the problem and solve it as is.

48÷x(9+3) reads 48 over x(9+3). x(9+3) then becomes 12x
so now we have  48÷12x=288.

multiply both sides by 12x, and then you get 48= 3456x
divide both sides by 3456 and x=/=2

so how do you go from x(12) to 12x if you arent implying multiplication? you clearly just multiplied to get it. You keep doing the same thing and saying to multiply before divide. ab = a * b you dont HAVE to right the sign for it to be acknowledged.

x÷ab doesn't equal x÷a*b. if you can't see that, then it's pointless to keep debating with you.

^ input values and you will see
x=20
a=5
b=4

the answer to the first one is 1, the answer to the second one is 16.

So you are saying (20)÷(5)(4)
isnt worked out as:
(20)÷(5)(4)
(4)(4)
16?

http://www.wolframalpha.c...0%29%C3%B7%285%29%284%29

Again prove me other wise that you must multiply before divide.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son


that isn't how the problem is written though. you just implied that multiplication sign and brought it into the problem. don't bring any extra signs into the problem and solve it as is.

48÷x(9+3) reads 48 over x(9+3). x(9+3) then becomes 12x
so now we have  48÷12x=288.

multiply both sides by 12x, and then you get 48= 3456x
divide both sides by 3456 and x=/=2

so how do you go from x(12) to 12x if you arent implying multiplication? you clearly just multiplied to get it. You keep doing the same thing and saying to multiply before divide. ab = a * b you dont HAVE to right the sign for it to be acknowledged.

x÷ab doesn't equal x÷a*b. if you can't see that, then it's pointless to keep debating with you.

^ input values and you will see
x=20
a=5
b=4

the answer to the first one is 1, the answer to the second one is 16.

So you are saying (20)÷(5)(4)
isnt worked out as:
(20)÷(5)(4)
(4)(4)
16?

http://www.wolframalpha.c...0%29%C3%B7%285%29%284%29

Again prove me other wise that you must multiply before divide.

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW


Because man you want to get the x by itself.
The problem is written like this: 48/x * (9+3) = 288

So, I assume you know the basics of algebra, you would multiply both sides by x to cancel out the one on the left side and get x by itself on the right side. Understandable? I think so.

Now you are left with 48 * (9+3) = 288x

Do the multiplication you get 576 = 288x

X=2

Even ask BC2310, he'll check the answer for you on Wolfram Alpha and tell you that X=2.

that isn't how the problem is written though. you just implied that multiplication sign and brought it into the problem. don't bring any extra signs into the problem and solve it as is.

48÷x(9+3) reads 48 over x(9+3). x(9+3) then becomes 12x
so now we have  48÷12x=288.

multiply both sides by 12x, and then you get 48= 3456x
divide both sides by 3456 and x=/=2

so how do you go from x(12) to 12x if you arent implying multiplication? you clearly just multiplied to get it. You keep doing the same thing and saying to multiply before divide. ab = a * b you dont HAVE to right the sign for it to be acknowledged.

Thank you. Someone silence this dude, he clearly is having some troubles with math. I'm not adding @#$# to the problem, the way I wrote the problem is the EXACT SAME. I just tried to write it that way to make it a little more simple for some of you since I know that it is so very hard to comprehend.
Usain put it perfectly. HOW DO YOU GO FROM X(12) TO 12X IF YOU AREN'T MULTIPLYING? ANSWER THAT. PLEASE. 

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW


Because man you want to get the x by itself.
The problem is written like this: 48/x * (9+3) = 288

So, I assume you know the basics of algebra, you would multiply both sides by x to cancel out the one on the left side and get x by itself on the right side. Understandable? I think so.

Now you are left with 48 * (9+3) = 288x

Do the multiplication you get 576 = 288x

X=2

Even ask BC2310, he'll check the answer for you on Wolfram Alpha and tell you that X=2.

that isn't how the problem is written though. you just implied that multiplication sign and brought it into the problem. don't bring any extra signs into the problem and solve it as is.

48÷x(9+3) reads 48 over x(9+3). x(9+3) then becomes 12x
so now we have  48÷12x=288.

multiply both sides by 12x, and then you get 48= 3456x
divide both sides by 3456 and x=/=2

so how do you go from x(12) to 12x if you arent implying multiplication? you clearly just multiplied to get it. You keep doing the same thing and saying to multiply before divide. ab = a * b you dont HAVE to right the sign for it to be acknowledged.

Thank you. Someone silence this dude, he clearly is having some troubles with math. I'm not adding @#$# to the problem, the way I wrote the problem is the EXACT SAME. I just tried to write it that way to make it a little more simple for some of you since I know that it is so very hard to comprehend.
Usain put it perfectly. HOW DO YOU GO FROM X(12) TO 12X IF YOU AREN'T MULTIPLYING? ANSWER THAT. PLEASE. 

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

so how do you go from x(12) to 12x if you arent implying multiplication? you clearly just multiplied to get it. You keep doing the same thing and saying to multiply before divide. ab = a * b you dont HAVE to right the sign for it to be acknowledged.

x÷ab doesn't equal x÷a*b. if you can't see that, then it's pointless to keep debating with you.

^ input values and you will see
x=20
a=5
b=4

the answer to the first one is 1, the answer to the second one is 16.

So you are saying (20)÷(5)(4)
isnt worked out as:
(20)÷(5)(4)
(4)(4)
16?

http://www.wolframalpha.c...0%29%C3%B7%285%29%284%29

Again prove me other wise that you must multiply before divide.

do you not see that x is one term and ab is one term? by splitting it up into 2 separate terms you just you change the entire problem.

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by BC2310

Sorry I had to do that to you man. Hate to do it to a fellow Seattle sports fan, and native at that. It's nothing personal. Just made a little mad with that post, that's all. 
Had to show you the light on solving this problem. You really need to upgrade to that Ferrari though, cause that Corolla ain't cutting it 

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by BC2310

Sorry I had to do that to you man. Hate to do it to a fellow Seattle sports fan, and native at that. It's nothing personal. Just made a little mad with that post, that's all. 
Had to show you the light on solving this problem. You really need to upgrade to that Ferrari though, cause that Corolla ain't cutting it 

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

so how do you go from x(12) to 12x if you arent implying multiplication? you clearly just multiplied to get it. You keep doing the same thing and saying to multiply before divide. ab = a * b you dont HAVE to right the sign for it to be acknowledged.

x÷ab doesn't equal x÷a*b. if you can't see that, then it's pointless to keep debating with you.

^ input values and you will see
x=20
a=5
b=4

the answer to the first one is 1, the answer to the second one is 16.

So you are saying (20)÷(5)(4)
isnt worked out as:
(20)÷(5)(4)
(4)(4)
16?

http://www.wolframalpha.c...0%29%C3%B7%285%29%284%29

Again prove me other wise that you must multiply before divide.

do you not see that x is one term and ab is one term? by splitting it up into 2 separate terms you just you change the entire problem.

 

[dtb00201]

wrote the problem out and got 288. Then I did it on my TI-83 calculator, and my TI-86 emulator on my phone and got 288 on both.

 

[dtb00201]

wrote the problem out and got 288. Then I did it on my TI-83 calculator, and my TI-86 emulator on my phone and got 288 on both.

 

[bc2310]

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by BC2310

Sorry I had to do that to you man. Hate to do it to a fellow Seattle sports fan, and native at that. It's nothing personal. Just made a little mad with that post, that's all. 
Had to show you the light on solving this problem. You really need to upgrade to that Ferrari though, cause that Corolla ain't cutting it 

Hey no worries like I said the symbol is what makes me team2. 
I also think it's hilarious how serious people are getting about this 'simple' math problem.  

I have stated that without that symbol I'm on team288 from my first post some 15pgs ago (I got in late) *if* / was used instead of the old symbol.

I definitely would have done the same. I dont take the nets as seriously as a lot of these folks 

I refuse to believe that the old symbol being used on all the forum threads is a coincidence. 

And the Ferrari is un-American... j/k 

 

[bc2310]

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by BC2310

Sorry I had to do that to you man. Hate to do it to a fellow Seattle sports fan, and native at that. It's nothing personal. Just made a little mad with that post, that's all. 
Had to show you the light on solving this problem. You really need to upgrade to that Ferrari though, cause that Corolla ain't cutting it 

Hey no worries like I said the symbol is what makes me team2. 
I also think it's hilarious how serious people are getting about this 'simple' math problem.  

I have stated that without that symbol I'm on team288 from my first post some 15pgs ago (I got in late) *if* / was used instead of the old symbol.

I definitely would have done the same. I dont take the nets as seriously as a lot of these folks 

I refuse to believe that the old symbol being used on all the forum threads is a coincidence. 

And the Ferrari is un-American... j/k 

 

[DPancakes]

Originally Posted by dtb00201

wrote the problem out and got 288. Then I did it on my TI-83 calculator, and my TI-86 emulator on my phone and got 288 on both.

Congratulations. Come celebrate Team 288's victory 

 

[DPancakes]

Originally Posted by dtb00201

wrote the problem out and got 288. Then I did it on my TI-83 calculator, and my TI-86 emulator on my phone and got 288 on both.

Congratulations. Come celebrate Team 288's victory 

 

[mo greene]

team 288 doing work

kudos to co-captains usainbolt and certified

 

[mo greene]

team 288 doing work

kudos to co-captains usainbolt and certified

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

My note CLEARLY shows my answer to your question. If you can't understand it then you shouldn't even be in this thread.

The problem with the youth nowadays is that you rely too much on technology (Google, Wolfram Alpha, calculator) to solve simple math problems and try to pass if off as learned knowledge. 

And the problem with all you old geezers nowadays, is that you're all stuck in the past.

My level of education thus far > everything you've done...don't play yourself.

I've posted my work multiple times in this thread...way before you came in here on your pen and paper bull...check the earlier pages...

The technology substantiates an answer of 288, that's why you're all salty and ishhhh.


...

The ignorance and arrogance.

Rich...truly rich...especially considering that this is coming from someone who tried to belittle me ( or anyone who championed an answer of 288 for that matter) by implicating some level of naivete on my part; can you be any more ironic, Krux?...

...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

My note CLEARLY shows my answer to your question. If you can't understand it then you shouldn't even be in this thread.

The problem with the youth nowadays is that you rely too much on technology (Google, Wolfram Alpha, calculator) to solve simple math problems and try to pass if off as learned knowledge. 

And the problem with all you old geezers nowadays, is that you're all stuck in the past.

My level of education thus far > everything you've done...don't play yourself.

I've posted my work multiple times in this thread...way before you came in here on your pen and paper bull...check the earlier pages...

The technology substantiates an answer of 288, that's why you're all salty and ishhhh.


...

The ignorance and arrogance.

Rich...truly rich...especially considering that this is coming from someone who tried to belittle me ( or anyone who championed an answer of 288 for that matter) by implicating some level of naivete on my part; can you be any more ironic, Krux?...

...

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by durty pancakes

Originally Posted by dtb00201

wrote the problem out and got 288. Then I did it on my TI-83 calculator, and my TI-86 emulator on my phone and got 288 on both.

Congratulations. Come celebrate Team 288's victory 

#Team288 #winning #Sheenin

Mo Greene wrote:

---

team 288 doing work 

kudos to co-captains usainbolt and certified

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by durty pancakes

Originally Posted by dtb00201

wrote the problem out and got 288. Then I did it on my TI-83 calculator, and my TI-86 emulator on my phone and got 288 on both.

Congratulations. Come celebrate Team 288's victory 

#Team288 #winning #Sheenin

Mo Greene wrote:

---

team 288 doing work 

kudos to co-captains usainbolt and certified

 

[balloonoboy]

The answer is 2 though.

 

[balloonoboy]

The answer is 2 though.

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

And UncleTomCruze, you've said multiple times in the thread the answer can be 2, 8.6(repeating), or 288.

Your argument for choosing 288 over the other two is because you said using distribution yields two possible answers, whereas sttict PEMDAS yields only 288.

But you do agree that there are a possibility of three answers, but you still champion 288. That's a $$%!% move. Stand by your word and say that the answer is undefinable.

I don't know why no one called your !%! out on that earlier. Pitiful.

Yes, there is a possibility of three answers...ESPECIALLY AFTER YOU RESORT TO MATHEMATICAL PROPERTIES THAT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE APPLIED, WORD TO THE DISTRIBUTIVE PROPERTY...

If you tackle the math the way it's supposed to be done, there is only one answer = 288.


...