48÷2(9+3) = ???

[late registrant]

wow, klipschorn. citing all of those sources for NOTHING. and that's sir isaac newton in your avy? wow.

but can someone explain how they got 33 on that one problem? it's confusing the hell outta me. i tried doing it right, doing it wrong, and doing it ala CertifiedSW, and i don't get an answer near 33.

 

[klipschorn]

 

[klipschorn]

 

[mo greene]

Originally Posted by willsndvl

wow, klipschorn. citing all of those sources for NOTHING. and that's sir isaac newton in your avy? wow.

but can someone explain how they got 33 on that one problem? it's confusing the hell outta me. i tried doing it right, doing it wrong, and doing it ala CertifiedSW, and i don't get an answer near 33.

 it's the EXACT same concept as the original problem
[size=+1]36÷4(5 - 2) + 6 =[/size]

[size=+1]36[/size][size=+1]÷4(3) + 6[/size]

[size=+1]9(3)+ 6[/size]

[size=+1]27+6[/size]

[size=+1]33[/size]

[size=+1]
[/size]

P: Solve what's WITHIN the parentheses

E: No exponents

MD: Follow the order of operations left to right - divide then multiply

AS: Add the 6

 

[mo greene]

Originally Posted by willsndvl

wow, klipschorn. citing all of those sources for NOTHING. and that's sir isaac newton in your avy? wow.

but can someone explain how they got 33 on that one problem? it's confusing the hell outta me. i tried doing it right, doing it wrong, and doing it ala CertifiedSW, and i don't get an answer near 33.

 it's the EXACT same concept as the original problem
[size=+1]36÷4(5 - 2) + 6 =[/size]

[size=+1]36[/size][size=+1]÷4(3) + 6[/size]

[size=+1]9(3)+ 6[/size]

[size=+1]27+6[/size]

[size=+1]33[/size]

[size=+1]
[/size]

P: Solve what's WITHIN the parentheses

E: No exponents

MD: Follow the order of operations left to right - divide then multiply

AS: Add the 6

 

[klipschorn]

Originally Posted by Mo Greene

Originally Posted by willsndvl

wow, klipschorn. citing all of those sources for NOTHING. and that's sir isaac newton in your avy? wow.

but can someone explain how they got 33 on that one problem? it's confusing the hell outta me. i tried doing it right, doing it wrong, and doing it ala CertifiedSW, and i don't get an answer near 33.

 it's the EXACT same concept as the original problem
[size=+1]36÷4(5 - 2) + 6 =[/size]

[size=+1]36[/size][size=+1]÷4(3) + 6[/size]

[size=+1]9(3)+ 6[/size]

[size=+1]27+6[/size]

[size=+1]33[/size]

[size=+1]
[/size]

P: Solve what's WITHIN the parentheses

E: No exponents

MD: Follow the order of operations left to right - divide then multiply

AS: Add the 6

Mo Greene, there is no hope.

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by Klipschorn

 It's alright man. You proved a pretty good point back there.

Plus you have Newton as your avy so you already know how official your answers are. 

 

[bananaboy2601]

Originally Posted by DanzInRealLife




Sup, my calculator says it's 2.


Oh and it also says 9.

Sup, your calculator doesn't have order of operations written in it's source code.

Oh and math says its 288

 

[bananaboy2601]

Originally Posted by DanzInRealLife




Sup, my calculator says it's 2.


Oh and it also says 9.

Sup, your calculator doesn't have order of operations written in it's source code.

Oh and math says its 288

 

[late registrant]

you've GOT to be joking, my dude.

 

[late registrant]

you've GOT to be joking, my dude.

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by Klipschorn

 It's alright man. You proved a pretty good point back there.

Plus you have Newton as your avy so you already know how official your answers are. 

 

[klipschorn]

Originally Posted by Mo Greene

Originally Posted by willsndvl

wow, klipschorn. citing all of those sources for NOTHING. and that's sir isaac newton in your avy? wow.

but can someone explain how they got 33 on that one problem? it's confusing the hell outta me. i tried doing it right, doing it wrong, and doing it ala CertifiedSW, and i don't get an answer near 33.

 it's the EXACT same concept as the original problem
[size=+1]36÷4(5 - 2) + 6 =[/size]

[size=+1]36[/size][size=+1]÷4(3) + 6[/size]

[size=+1]9(3)+ 6[/size]

[size=+1]27+6[/size]

[size=+1]33[/size]

[size=+1]
[/size]

P: Solve what's WITHIN the parentheses

E: No exponents

MD: Follow the order of operations left to right - divide then multiply

AS: Add the 6

Mo Greene, there is no hope.

 

[klipschorn]

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by Klipschorn

 It's alright man. You proved a pretty good point back there.

Plus you have Newton as your avy so you already know how official your answers are. 

I couldn't even laugh dude, its just saddening.

 

[klipschorn]

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by Klipschorn

 It's alright man. You proved a pretty good point back there.

Plus you have Newton as your avy so you already know how official your answers are. 

I couldn't even laugh dude, its just saddening.

 

[desoiation1]

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. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy:

• 
  
  

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!

 

[desoiation1]

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. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy:

• 
  
  

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!

 

[servechilled81]

those that say 2, please consider (kinda hard to see)

after you have simplified what is in the parentheses to this:

[h3]48÷2(12)[/h3]

this  [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]48÷[/font]2(12) 
now means to multiply, not distribute, not get rid of ( ), just multiply

knowing the Order... you wouldn't do that before you divided in this case

 

[servechilled81]

those that say 2, please consider (kinda hard to see)

after you have simplified what is in the parentheses to this:

[h3]48÷2(12)[/h3]

this  [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]48÷[/font]2(12) 
now means to multiply, not distribute, not get rid of ( ), just multiply

knowing the Order... you wouldn't do that before you divided in this case

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by Klipschorn

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by Klipschorn

 It's alright man. You proved a pretty good point back there.

Plus you have Newton as your avy so you already know how official your answers are. 

I couldn't even laugh dude, its just saddening.

It really is. The audacity of some of these dudes in here 

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by Klipschorn

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by Klipschorn

 It's alright man. You proved a pretty good point back there.

Plus you have Newton as your avy so you already know how official your answers are. 

I couldn't even laugh dude, its just saddening.

It really is. The audacity of some of these dudes in here 

 

[cesarhpr1986]

All right NT
this is going on so long for such a simple problem

there is not difference in computation between 2(9+3) or 2*(9+3)....its the same

we have to use PEMDAS

so 

48/2(9+3)

48/2(12)    Multiplication and Division is done from left to right which ever comes first

24(12)

288

Calculators are stupid, they are only as good as the person using them

look at it this way

if you believe that 48/(2(9+3)) and 48/2(9+3) are two completely different problems, then they should give us different answers.

which they do, the first one gives us 2, and the second one 288...because if you say 48/2(9+3)  is 2, then you are contradicting the axioms of arithmetic

 

[cesarhpr1986]

All right NT
this is going on so long for such a simple problem

there is not difference in computation between 2(9+3) or 2*(9+3)....its the same

we have to use PEMDAS

so 

48/2(9+3)

48/2(12)    Multiplication and Division is done from left to right which ever comes first

24(12)

288

Calculators are stupid, they are only as good as the person using them

look at it this way

if you believe that 48/(2(9+3)) and 48/2(9+3) are two completely different problems, then they should give us different answers.

which they do, the first one gives us 2, and the second one 288...because if you say 48/2(9+3)  is 2, then you are contradicting the axioms of arithmetic

 

[just blazed]

Originally Posted by DanzInRealLife




Sup, my calculator says it's 2.


Oh and it also says 9.

you're using a Casio calculator, though. #poor
try it on a TI calculator

 

[just blazed]

Originally Posted by DanzInRealLife




Sup, my calculator says it's 2.


Oh and it also says 9.

you're using a Casio calculator, though. #poor
try it on a TI calculator