|
Анкета
And the answer is...
|
| Аутор |
Тема: 48÷2(9+3)=??? 2 or 288 |
1376 одговора
|
|
|
|
|
|
I get the feeling some folk just keep arguing to save face and not because they accept they could be wrong.
Do me a favour though, If you replaced the 9+3 with X
48/2(X)
What would you get in relation to X?
|
|
|
|
288.
48/2(9+3) -> 48/2(12) -> 48/2*12 = 288
operation in parenthesys should be done first
|
|
|
|
|
heheh this argument is never stop :D
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 17th 2011,18:19:05 )
"x" means "*" right?
yes, but there is no symbol in the original notation
48÷2(9+3)
so the 2 belong to the brackets
try writing it without any multiplication symbol and see what you get
|
|
|
|
It's a badly written, ambiguous formula, and that's all it is.
In my silly little opinion, anyway.
Quote ( Brian Branch @ April 17th 2011,03:31:34 )
I should gather all of the personal insults in this thread and use them in quotation form for the next 4 seasons.
Use brackets rather than quotations so the order of priority is clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcelo Michelini @ April 17th 2011,18:42:06 )
yes, but there is no symbol in the original notation
We don't have to write it because already there is !
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcelo Michelini @ April 17th 2011,18:42:06 )
yes, but there is no symbol in the original notation
48÷2(9+3)
so the 2 belong to the brackets
try writing it without any multiplication symbol and see what you get
but 48/2(9+3) is the same thing with 48/2*(9+3) come on.. :(
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 17th 2011,18:47:10 )
but 48/2(9+3) is the same thing with 48/2*(9+3) come on.. :(
Yeap absolutely whats for all of these ?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 17th 2011,18:47:10 )
but 48/2(9+3) is the same thing with 48/2*(9+3) come on.. :(
a(b) = a*(b)
but if the notation makes you change the value of "a", then it is not the same...
if you add the * you are explicity saying to treat the prior division first, because of the bodmas? going from left to right?
if you don't add it, it's read as the double of b
small difference, but it's there
try it out in the calc, you can write it the way it is presented
|
|
|
|
maybe that's in your country..i don't know
here 48/2(9+3) = 48/2*(9+3) = 48/2x(9+3)->actually we don't use in 11th grade x as multiplication symbol, because x can be an unknown value .. but on calculators, x is the multiplication symbol
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 17th 2011,18:52:17 )
maybe that's in your country..i don't know
here 48/2(9+3) = 48/2*(9+3) = 48/2x(9+3) ..
Maybe someone is making some mistakes but they're not us
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 17th 2011,18:52:17 )
maybe that's in your country..i don't know
Theo, I am asking you to write it down in your calculator, as it was originally written... you can write it without adding symbols, and you are in Romania, and I bet you will have a result of 2
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Emma Cassidy @ April 17th 2011,01:12:47 )
Brackets indicate multiplication, just like / is equivalent to division. It's standard mathematical notation. Give that equation to any mathematician, and they will give you 2 as the answer. There is no doubt around it, or other way to look at it.
Love it. Intelligent Irish girls agreeing with me :)
|
|
|
|
|
I'll ask again; Quote ( Jonathan MacLean @ April 17th 2011,18:30:01 )
Do me a favour though, If you replaced the 9+3 with X
48/2(X)
What would you get in relation to X?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcelo Michelini @ April 17th 2011,18:55:15 )
Theo, I am asking you to write it down in your calculator, as it was originally written... you can write it without adding symbols, and you are in Romania, and I bet you will have a result of 2
i don't have a casio...we'll have to wait for Cristian,
actually in windows calc, if i write 48/2(9+3) it says 4 =)
that's because there's nothing between 2( so 2 is eliminated..eh
Quote ( Jonathan MacLean @ April 17th 2011,18:55:56 )
Do me a favour though, If you replaced the 9+3 with X
48/2(X)
What would you get in relation to X?
damn, you gave me an idea, i wonder why no one ever thought of this:
48/2(X)=288 => 24(X)=288 => X=12 so 288 is the answer! :P
because 9+3= 12
or..if the answer is 2:
48/2(X)=2 => 24(X)=2 => X=0.5 incorrect! because x=12 :D
EAT THIS ! :D
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 17th 2011,18:57:14 )
48/2(X)=288 => 24(X)=288 => X=12 so 288 is the answer! :P
That's where you're wrong. you're not multiplying out the brackets.
I mean, In algebra. you multiply the brackets out to get rid of them in this instance...
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 17th 2011,18:57:14 )
EAT THIS ! :D
bhahaha
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Jonathan MacLean @ April 17th 2011,19:03:09 )
That's where you're wrong. you're not multiplying out the brackets.
I mean, In algebra. you multiply the brackets out to get rid of them in this instance...
so we'll have 48/2X=288
now what? :)
2(X)=2*X=2X ...
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcelo Michelini @ April 17th 2011,18:55:15 )
Theo, I am asking you to write it down in your calculator, as it was originally written... you can write it without adding symbols, and you are in Romania, and I bet you will have a result of 2
marcelo, do you finally agree with us that there no difference between / and ÷?
the difference is the "x" there! some software and calculators accept 2(9+3), others don't, they need something in between, a "." or "x" or "*"!
that is the convention we should speak about, not about division and fractions!
"Implied Multiplication
However, the answer 2 could be justified by the principle of implied multiplication. For example, consider the problem "2/5x."
If one strictly follows the standard order of operations, the correct interpretation would be “(2/5)*(x).”
But many calculators and textbooks state that a higher value of precedence should be placed on implied multiplication than on explicit multiplication:
Because “5x” is implied to be "5*x," it gets higher priority than "2/5." In this case, "2/5x" would be interpreted as "(2)/(5*x)."
Returning to the original problem, if one utilizes the principles of implied multiplication, then “2(9+3)” gets higher precedence than the explicit “48/2”
However, there is a lack of consensus on the value of implied multiplication."
cited from:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 17th 2011,19:07:03 )
so we'll have 48/2X=288
2x = ((9*2)+(3*2)) = 2x = 24.
OR
48
2x
=
__48__
2(9+3)
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 17th 2011,18:57:14 )
or..if the answer is 2:
48/2(X)=2 => 24(X)=2 => X=0.5 incorrect! because x=12 :D
48/2(X)=2
48/2 = 2(X)
24 = 2(X)
12 = X
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 17th 2011,18:57:14 )
EAT THIS ! :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Daryl Gee @ April 17th 2011,19:11:40 )
48/2(X)=2
48/2 = 2(X)
24 = 2(X)
12 = X
incorrect
at 48/2 = 2(X) where did you get a second "2" ? :)
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 17th 2011,19:13:16 )
at 48/2 = 2(X) where di you get a second "2" ? :)
From it being =2 at the end?
He was transposing the x to the other side.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Daryl Gee @ April 17th 2011,19:11:40 )
48/2(X)=2
48/2 = 2(X)
look at this again! how can you move the (X) from one side to the other???
edit:
no sign means implicit multiply, and multiply moved to the other side is division!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 17th 2011,19:13:16 )
at 48/2 = 2(X) where di you get a second "2" ? :)
lolwut? What second 2? I just multiplied both sides by X. Because I assumed the X was on the bottom in the first notation.
I just did what you did with your "eat this" proof, calculate it out using one particular assumption of the way the notation works and then act like you've proved a point, because it only works with that assumption. It also only works one way with the other assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Jonathan MacLean @ April 17th 2011,19:14:02 )
From it being =2 at the end?
He was transposing the x to the other side.
oh right, sorry about that
but you can't move only X because is multiplied with 2...
|
|
|
|
if
(48) / (2(9+3)) = 2
else
(48/2)*(9+3) = 288
question is not quite correct
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 17th 2011,19:19:01 )
but you can't move only X because is multiplied with 2...
Of course you can.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Daryl Gee @ April 17th 2011,19:20:40 )
Of course you can.
search and post here a rule that says you can separate 2 values if they are multiplied each other
i'm out, will check the forum when i come back..next morning i guess :D
y'all have a good night and play nice :)
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
