48/2(9+3) = ?

[Reggie]

Yup, folks are forgetting that the "/" can be represented as the fraction symbol and every number can be represented by dividing it by 1. So the actual problem was:

48        (9 + 3)
__    x    _____

 2           1

 

[Wy Renegade]

LOL; this one of those problems commonly seen on standardized tests that causes huge frustration even to advanced math students. Technically, the correct answer is 2. So in this case, Macbook Pro gets the cuddos, and google gets the epic fail! Without paranthesis to indicate that the outside multiplcation should occur first, everything right of the division sign is considered the bottom of the fraction, and resolves out to 24. 24 divided into 48 gives you 2, the correct answer.

 

[dougers31]

Now I'm feeling a little better about myself;)

 

[Reggie]

LOL. I don't see any ambiguity in: 48/2*12. With multiplication and division left, you just perform from left to right, or based on the order -- multiplication never trumps division and vice versa. So why would you multiply 2 and 12 first??

 

[Wy Renegade]

LOL. I don't see any ambiguity in: 48/2*12. With multiplication and division left, you just perform from left to right, or based on the order -- multiplication never trumps division and vice versa. So why would you multiply 2 and 12 first??

Because in order to solve the fraction you have to know what the denominator is. Its not simple multipication/division, its a fraction with addition and multiplication in the denominator.

 

[Reggie]

Nope, fraction wise, unless it was explicitly specified that 12 is part of the denominator using parentheses, it's the numerator and represented as 12/1.

Ok, if it was written in fraction form as:

   48
________

2(9 + 3)

then, even without the parentheses, it would be apparent that 12 is part of the denominator. As it is, it's:

48
__  x  (9 + 3)

2

 

[drainbamage]

its 288 as worded.

if it was 2, it would need to be written 48/[2(9+3)] That extra set of brackets is everything.

 

[Billgax]

its 288 as worded.

if it was 2, it would need to be written 48/[2(9+3)] That extra set of brackets is everything.

+1. Drainbramage nailed it...

 

[Wy Renegade]

Nope, fraction wise, unless it was explicitly specified that 12 is part of the denominator using parentheses, it's the numerator and represented as 12/1.

its 288 as worded.

if it was 2, it would need to be written 48/[2(9+3)] That extra set of brackets is everything.

LOL; guess you both better get on the ACT scoring board then, because as written according to the ACT or any standarized national test, the correct answer is 2. In order for the correct answer to be 288, it would have to be written (28/2)(9+3) - you're right Brian, in that the brackets or paranthesis are everything, since they don't exist, the question is correctly read as a fraction, and denominator gets solved first.

 

[Reggie]

denominator gets solved first.

First time I've heard of that. Anyway, only Apple computes it incorrectly -- C++, Python, PHP compute it as 288.

 

[Wy Renegade]

First time I've heard of that. Anyway, only Apple computes it incorrectly -- C++, Python, PHP compute it as 288.

Might make for an interesting argument with the standards boards, but my interpretation would be that only Apple computes it correctly, the others all compute it incorrectly LOL ;). Technology after all, only does what we tell it to.

 

[drainbamage]

still going to disagree with you Randy- you're implying the problem is

48/2/(9+3)

I've yet to have any teacher in higher education try and assert that a multiplication is more important than division just because it's in the denominator.

48/2*(9+3) = (48/2)*(9+3)

as written the problem is 48/2*(9+3) which the '2-crowd' are implying is 48/(2*(9+3)) The problem is that method is presuming the placement of the (9+3) as being in the denominator- any math teacher worth their salt (no offense if anyone here is, but I've been grilled by some extremely 'old school' math guys) will tell you you can't do that- you can't add info to a problem based on presumptions, you have to work with what the problem gives you.

remember 7*8 = (7)(8) that's all an outside parentheses implies is a standard multiplication- the integer preceding it in this case has no ability to 'pull-down' the (9+3) into the denominator. Reggie's example is perfect of this

 

[SD Actuary]

I deal with Excel and #s every day, for 10 hours a day. And if you plug this equation into Excel, you get 288 and Excel knows all.

 

[Reggie]

@Wy Renegade
LOL. Would you convert everything in fraction? I guess with this: 1/2/3*4*5/6*7/8*9 you will first find all denominators and compute it first? Majority will just compute it from left to right -- similar to the original problem.

 

[Viva'sReef]

most of the time the simplest answer is the correct answer. You guys are over thinking the problem....288 FTW

 

[benny z]

288 is highly complex.

2 is much simpler...

;)

 

[sdsocal]

O' but lets take a look and just what is "multiplication by juxtaposition" Not that I believe everything written on the Internet: The Order of Operations: More Examples bottom of page



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!

 

[drainbamage]

most of the time the simplest answer is the correct answer. You guys are over thinking the problem....288 FTW

there's no such thing as overthinking math :bigsmile:

now we could always take the limit of X as X tends towards infinity....

 

[drainbamage]

did you guys hear Pi and i got into a fight? Turned real nasty, Pi told i to get real, i told Pi to be rational....


Did ya hear how Pascal never bothered debating triangles with Pythagoras? No matter what Pascal said, Pythagoras's we're always right...


yes, I have more :xd:

 

[sdsocal]

I think the article I put above says it all.

No End to The Arguing............. Interesting Read.