OT: Sparty No - I can't believe this is what we are up against
This thread is full of fail:
http://michiganstate.247sports.com/Board/93/48293--1787217/1
I hope they didn't major in FINANCIAL MATHEMATICS!!!
That said, it goes a long ways towards explaining:
And, by the way, the answer to 48/2(9+3) = 288.
I suppose you rely heavily on google translate too
You can't compare the nuances of human language to the hard and fast rules of mathematics. They're not even in the same ballpark.
"You can't compare the nuances of human language to the hard and fast rules of mathematics. They're not even in the same ballpark."
I find at least in this case that they're very comparable. The very fact that people can't agree on the way in which this problem is done tells me that google isn't necessarily the best source.
Looks like they made some improvements when Texas Instruments came out with their 86.
said 288, so that meants even Texas Instruments can't decide... regardless I'm done arguing this point it's going nowhere
The TI-83 came out AFTER the TI-85, and before the TI-86.
Anyway, operations go left to right.
I don't get why you quoted my post, as you didn't address the comparision. The fact that people can be wrong doesn't suggest anything other than that we are still human.
---
I'd say the fact that the refactored version of the calculator supports 288 is telling. That's an issue of how a programmer decides to handle methods, and they apparently chose to differentiate between multiplication and the distributive property the first time around.
I see exactly where the division is made, you're either using the distributive property and coming out with 2 (like I am) or you're not and coming out with 288 (like you are). And clearly it's a point of contention between people who are much better at math than I am (as Ti keeps waffling, and my parents are using the distributive property, whereas others aren't).
But when it all comes down to it I'm not heading into a career field that will demand the answer to this problem. At this point I'm spending way too much energy arguing something I'm not all that interested in. So I'm just not going to argue it any further.
Yeah cause although search engines have no problem modeling insanely complex algorithms, simple arithmitic might be too much for it.
Dude, you are completely wrong, just drop it, you're sounding like one of the RCMB posters by attempting to reason this argument. You can't just arbitrarily add parentheses where they don't exist. 2(9+3) is EXACTLY the same as 2*(9+3). The only operation affected by the parentheses is the addition. Just because something is next to a set of parentheses doesn't mean it gets priority all of the sudden, it's just a shorthand way of writing multiplication.
"you're sounding like one of the RCMB posters"
I take offense to that, I have yet to call anyone an idiot simply because I came out with a different answer than they did.
But I will agree that it's better if the argument gets dropped.
You haven't called other people an idiot because they are RIGHT. The answer is 288, there is no question, no ambiguity, no room for reason. It is a simple mathematical equation, and the answer is 288. One of your calculators obviously has something wrong with it from that screencap, because it is simply giving you the wrong answer to the question. A TI-85 is a very old model, correct? The code is likely out of date and that's why they keep making new models.
said 288, the Ti-85 said 2, the Ti-86 said 288, Texas instruments can't figure it out.
The TI-83 isn't older than the TI-85... They don't go in numerical order. The TI-85 is over 20 years old, the 83 and 86 are newer models which have since corrected for the error.
I'm basing my argument off of personal experience and qualification here, not a calculator, which are, as you have seen, prone to human error.
lol...you keep beating me to it.
Ti-85 is a very old calculator. In fact, the only older TI graphing calculator is the TI81. 73, 80 83, 84, 86, 89 and 92 all came out after the 85.
I am pretty sure this error is fixed in the later calculators.
2(9+3) = 2*(9+3)
48/x = 48*(1/x)
If a multiplication sign binds an adjacent term to the parentheses, then... according to your logic...
48/2*(9+3) =
48/((2*9)+(2*3)) =
48*(1/((2*9)+(2*3))) =
48*((1/(2*9))+(1/(2*3))) =
(48*(1/(2*9))) + (48*(1/(2*3))) =
2.66667 + 8 =
10.6666667
Which, no, obviously
the 2(9+3) does not have to be reduced first. the (9+3) has to be reduced first. 48/2(12). From there, the 48/2 has to be reduced first because it comes first in the problem. (24)(12)= 288
I promise you. Even the 2nd most visited website in the world agrees with me.