48÷2(9+3) = ???

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Originally Posted by JChambers

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

I asked (insert someone with a math credential) and they said 2.

I can do it too.

I asked Google and Wolfram Alpha and they said 288.
Mine are verifiable.

Asking a machine doesn't work. TI calculators, the creme de la creme of computing, aren't valid when handling such problems. Wolfram Alpha totally changes the equation. And you're using google as a computation engine? Seriously?

My point was that these sources are more valid than "my brother's girlfriend is a high school teacher and she said", etc. The answer is still 288. Nobody in this thread has shown any mathematical rule from a valid source that would allow the 2(12)  to take precedence over the 48÷2. Not once. Changing the equation to suit your purposes does not prove anything.

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Originally Posted by JChambers

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

I asked (insert someone with a math credential) and they said 2.

I can do it too.

I asked Google and Wolfram Alpha and they said 288.
Mine are verifiable.

Asking a machine doesn't work. TI calculators, the creme de la creme of computing, aren't valid when handling such problems. Wolfram Alpha totally changes the equation. And you're using google as a computation engine? Seriously?

My point was that these sources are more valid than "my brother's girlfriend is a high school teacher and she said", etc. The answer is still 288. Nobody in this thread has shown any mathematical rule from a valid source that would allow the 2(12)  to take precedence over the 48÷2. Not once. Changing the equation to suit your purposes does not prove anything.

 

[impalaballa187]

It's 2... C'mon son. Why is this 118 pages?

 

[impalaballa187]

It's 2... C'mon son. Why is this 118 pages?

 

[balloonoboy]

I just posted a valid source on the last page. I even posted her resume. She knows her stuff.

 

[balloonoboy]

I just posted a valid source on the last page. I even posted her resume. She knows her stuff.

 

[grypr33]

This is STILL going on????
Team 288 was wrong on Sunday when I was trying to explain it to them and they're wrong now.

Team 2 from the start!

 

[grypr33]

This is STILL going on????
Team 288 was wrong on Sunday when I was trying to explain it to them and they're wrong now.

Team 2 from the start!

 

[danzinreallife]

usainboltisfast wrote:

---

This order isgenerally clear and unambiguous but problems do occur. One problem isa bug in Casio calculators made before 2007. For example, theexpression

shouldevaluate to 16 according to the order of operations. The divisionshould be done first. It is evaluated incorrectly to 1 by earlierCasio calculators. If you instead enter

theCasio will give the correct answer. TI calculators do not have thisproblem. Casio has fixed this problem in newer calculators.

http://www.imperial.edu/~...es/impliedgroupings.html


I bought my calculator this year. Good try.

 

[danzinreallife]

usainboltisfast wrote:

---

This order isgenerally clear and unambiguous but problems do occur. One problem isa bug in Casio calculators made before 2007. For example, theexpression

shouldevaluate to 16 according to the order of operations. The divisionshould be done first. It is evaluated incorrectly to 1 by earlierCasio calculators. If you instead enter

theCasio will give the correct answer. TI calculators do not have thisproblem. Casio has fixed this problem in newer calculators.

http://www.imperial.edu/~...es/impliedgroupings.html


I bought my calculator this year. Good try.

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

I just posted a valid source on the last page. I even posted her resume. She knows her stuff.

One woman's statement on a website? Sorry, that's not going to override a solid convention that has been  universally agreed upon as the rule to solve math equations. I can find ten thousand websites from solid sources that explain the order of operations, purplemath.com is not going to stand up against that.

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

I just posted a valid source on the last page. I even posted her resume. She knows her stuff.

One woman's statement on a website? Sorry, that's not going to override a solid convention that has been  universally agreed upon as the rule to solve math equations. I can find ten thousand websites from solid sources that explain the order of operations, purplemath.com is not going to stand up against that.

 

[bc2310]

Originally Posted by JChambers

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Originally Posted by JChambers


I asked Google and Wolfram Alpha and they said 288.
Mine are verifiable.

Asking a machine doesn't work. TI calculators, the creme de la creme of computing, aren't valid when handling such problems. Wolfram Alpha totally changes the equation. And you're using google as a computation engine? Seriously?

My point was that these sources are more valid than "my brother's girlfriend is a high school teacher and she said", etc. The answer is still 288. Nobody in this thread has shown any mathematical rule from a valid source that would allow the 2(12)  to take precedence over the 48÷2. Not once. Changing the equation to suit your purposes does not prove anything.

The vid I posted a few pages back is from myalgebra.com and it gives 288 for 48/2(9+3) and 2 for 48÷2(9+3)

 

[bc2310]

Originally Posted by JChambers

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Originally Posted by JChambers


I asked Google and Wolfram Alpha and they said 288.
Mine are verifiable.

Asking a machine doesn't work. TI calculators, the creme de la creme of computing, aren't valid when handling such problems. Wolfram Alpha totally changes the equation. And you're using google as a computation engine? Seriously?

My point was that these sources are more valid than "my brother's girlfriend is a high school teacher and she said", etc. The answer is still 288. Nobody in this thread has shown any mathematical rule from a valid source that would allow the 2(12)  to take precedence over the 48÷2. Not once. Changing the equation to suit your purposes does not prove anything.

The vid I posted a few pages back is from myalgebra.com and it gives 288 for 48/2(9+3) and 2 for 48÷2(9+3)

 

[inspectah derek]

The problem is written on a single line. The linear nature of the notation of the problem, with the lack of additional brackets and parenthesis makes everyone follow the fundamental order of operations. The grouping of 2(9+3) is an ASSUMPTION. Can you get sources where the notations for division ÷ and / are inequivalent? Where  Ã· means  48 / [2(9+3)]  and / means  (48÷2) / (9+3) ?

And where implied multiplication, 2(9+3), holds precedence over explicit multiplication and division in the order of operations, * and ÷? Other than from the purplemath lady, she is just one person who holds that opinion. Even she says this assumption is questionable. e.g: "(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)". In fact, everyone questions the validity of this assumption. I don't understand why you would follow a questioned assumption as opposed to concrete, fundamental rules of the order of operations.

For those arguing that you must use the distribution property, then you must correctly distribute which is

48 ÷ 2( 9 + 3)

= 48 ÷ ( 18 + 6)

= 48÷18 + 48 ÷ 6

= 2.66 + 8

= 10.66

Yes? No.

 

[inspectah derek]

The problem is written on a single line. The linear nature of the notation of the problem, with the lack of additional brackets and parenthesis makes everyone follow the fundamental order of operations. The grouping of 2(9+3) is an ASSUMPTION. Can you get sources where the notations for division ÷ and / are inequivalent? Where  Ã· means  48 / [2(9+3)]  and / means  (48÷2) / (9+3) ?

And where implied multiplication, 2(9+3), holds precedence over explicit multiplication and division in the order of operations, * and ÷? Other than from the purplemath lady, she is just one person who holds that opinion. Even she says this assumption is questionable. e.g: "(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)". In fact, everyone questions the validity of this assumption. I don't understand why you would follow a questioned assumption as opposed to concrete, fundamental rules of the order of operations.

For those arguing that you must use the distribution property, then you must correctly distribute which is

48 ÷ 2( 9 + 3)

= 48 ÷ ( 18 + 6)

= 48÷18 + 48 ÷ 6

= 2.66 + 8

= 10.66

Yes? No.

 

[certifiedsw]

It's 288

 

[certifiedsw]

It's 288

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by inspectah derek


The problem is written on a single line. The linear nature of the notation of the problem, with the lack of additional brackets and parenthesis makes everyone follow the fundamental order of operations. The grouping of 2(9+3) is an ASSUMPTION. Can you get sources where the notations for division ÷ and / are inequivalent? Where  Ã· means  48 / [2(9+3)]  and / means  (48÷2) / (9+3) ?

And where implied multiplication, 2(9+3), holds precedence over explicit multiplication and division in the order of operations, * and ÷? Other than from the purplemath lady, she is just one person who holds that opinion. Even she says this assumption is questionable. e.g: "(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)". In fact, everyone questions the validity of this assumption. I don't understand why you would follow a questioned assumption as opposed to concrete, fundamental rules of the order of operations.

For those arguing that you must use the distribution property, then you must correctly distribute which is

48 ÷ 2( 9 + 3)

= 48 ÷ ( 18 + 6)

= 48÷18 + 48 ÷ 6

= 2.66 + 8

= 10.66

Yes? No.

I'm crying here.

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by BC2310

Originally Posted by JChambers

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Asking a machine doesn't work. TI calculators, the creme de la creme of computing, aren't valid when handling such problems. Wolfram Alpha totally changes the equation. And you're using google as a computation engine? Seriously?

My point was that these sources are more valid than "my brother's girlfriend is a high school teacher and she said", etc. The answer is still 288. Nobody in this thread has shown any mathematical rule from a valid source that would allow the 2(12)  to take precedence over the 48÷2. Not once. Changing the equation to suit your purposes does not prove anything.

The vid I posted a few pages back is from myalgebra.com and it gives 288 for 48/2(9+3) and 2 for 48÷2(9+3)

So, Wolfram Alfa and Google give us 288, and myalgebra.com gives us 2. Somewhat ambiguous. I still haven't seen a valid source that shows why the 2(12) should come first.I think that I will just follow the order of operations and stand by my belief that the answer is 288.  I think that team 2 knows that they are wrong at this point, but are just too hardheaded and prideful to admit it. The purplemath.com link is the only thing that I have seen so far that would make it logical that the answer is 2, but it's the only one, and I can't find that rule anywhere else, while the PEMDAS rules are cited everywhere. I am completely done with this thread though.

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by BC2310

Originally Posted by JChambers

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Asking a machine doesn't work. TI calculators, the creme de la creme of computing, aren't valid when handling such problems. Wolfram Alpha totally changes the equation. And you're using google as a computation engine? Seriously?

My point was that these sources are more valid than "my brother's girlfriend is a high school teacher and she said", etc. The answer is still 288. Nobody in this thread has shown any mathematical rule from a valid source that would allow the 2(12)  to take precedence over the 48÷2. Not once. Changing the equation to suit your purposes does not prove anything.

The vid I posted a few pages back is from myalgebra.com and it gives 288 for 48/2(9+3) and 2 for 48÷2(9+3)

So, Wolfram Alfa and Google give us 288, and myalgebra.com gives us 2. Somewhat ambiguous. I still haven't seen a valid source that shows why the 2(12) should come first.I think that I will just follow the order of operations and stand by my belief that the answer is 288.  I think that team 2 knows that they are wrong at this point, but are just too hardheaded and prideful to admit it. The purplemath.com link is the only thing that I have seen so far that would make it logical that the answer is 2, but it's the only one, and I can't find that rule anywhere else, while the PEMDAS rules are cited everywhere. I am completely done with this thread though.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by inspectah derek


The problem is written on a single line. The linear nature of the notation of the problem, with the lack of additional brackets and parenthesis makes everyone follow the fundamental order of operations. The grouping of 2(9+3) is an ASSUMPTION. Can you get sources where the notations for division ÷ and / are inequivalent? Where  Ã· means  48 / [2(9+3)]  and / means  (48÷2) / (9+3) ?

And where implied multiplication, 2(9+3), holds precedence over explicit multiplication and division in the order of operations, * and ÷? Other than from the purplemath lady, she is just one person who holds that opinion. Even she says this assumption is questionable. e.g: "(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)". In fact, everyone questions the validity of this assumption. I don't understand why you would follow a questioned assumption as opposed to concrete, fundamental rules of the order of operations.

For those arguing that you must use the distribution property, then you must correctly distribute which is

48 ÷ 2( 9 + 3)

= 48 ÷ ( 18 + 6)

= 48÷18 + 48 ÷ 6

= 2.66 + 8

= 10.66

Yes? No.

I'm crying here.

 

[bc2310]

^ yeah this is troll gold because the equation is so poorly written

 

[bc2310]

^ yeah this is troll gold because the equation is so poorly written

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by inspectah derek


The problem is written on a single line. The linear nature of the notation of the problem, with the lack of additional brackets and parenthesis makes everyone follow the fundamental order of operations. The grouping of 2(9+3) is an ASSUMPTION. Can you get sources where the notations for division ÷ and / are inequivalent? Where  Ã· means  48 / [2(9+3)]  and / means  (48÷2) / (9+3) ?

And where implied multiplication, 2(9+3), holds precedence over explicit multiplication and division in the order of operations, * and ÷? Other than from the purplemath lady, she is just one person who holds that opinion. Even she says this assumption is questionable. e.g: "(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)". In fact, everyone questions the validity of this assumption. I don't understand why you would follow a questioned assumption as opposed to concrete, fundamental rules of the order of operations.

For those arguing that you must use the distribution property, then you must correctly distribute which is

48 ÷ 2( 9 + 3)

= 48 ÷ ( 18 + 6)

= 48÷18 + 48 ÷ 6

= 2.66 + 8

= 10.66

Yes? No.