This thread is full of fail:
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.
This thread is full of fail:
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.
like why sparty often thinks a football game is over after 3 quarters.
Usually is when they play you guys.
Thats basic math you learn in 3rd or 4th grade. But, you don't need to have completed those grades to get in to state.
North Dakota fan believes the answer to be 2! Scooter and Louie disagree.
That's a silly way to write a denominator.
It's not a fraction. The division symbol is dividing the 48 by 2.
Those are equivalent expressions. What I found odd was that it used the distributive property to denote the multiplication of the fraction 48/2 and the quantity (9+3). Although it's been a while since grade school and I don't work with spread sheets so I don't really see expressions all on the same line. Just felt weird reading it.
Yeah but you don't use that divisor to divide 48 by the entire expression. It divides the 48 by the 2 only.
Will you stop pointing out rules that are not being violated. Really my post is just pointing out that I don't like omitting the multiplication character in this case; although that's the joke I suppose.
Yeah the joke..
But not 17-pages-of-posts hard... know what I'm saying?
Just promise me we aren't going to get in a 17 page argument over a simple arithmetic problem that wouldn't challenge most 5th grade children.
How many of them thought the first step was to distribute the 2?
Honestly this isn't that bad. If the question were 48/(2(9+3))=
they'd be right.
But that wasn't the question, and they have gone back and forth over an 18 pg thread discussing it. Ridiculous.
but it isn't.
It's "tricky," in that there is a natural inclination to mentally group the second part of the equation together.
But once someone points out "that isn't a grouping, so stop being a dumbshit," that should be the end of the fricking thread. It shouldn't turn into the most heated RCMB discussion since "Better body spray: Axe or Tag."
Now we know the answer to the question "How do you confuse a large group of spartys?"
is 288? no it isnt, its 2
Divide the 48 by the 2 first. It goes left to right.
well sure, if you're assuming the expression reads 48/2 x (9+3) yes - that is definitely 24 x 12 which equals 288. but it's a trick question because of how it's typed out. i assume the expression reads 48/(2(9+3)) in which you calculate the bottom first, and then simplify, which is 48/24... obviously 2.
here is a question: how many douchey mgoblog users does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
the answer is: nobody knows because mgoblog users would start arguing and negbanging each other
also, when is the last time anybody used a division sign?
Math isn't about assumptions. There is a correct way to do this problem and an incorrect way. You have chosen the incorrect way. Might I suggest a different path next time.
Nah I think white pony has stumbled onto some new deeper math truth and there are actually 2 correct answers to this question.
Sounds like Schrodinger's Cat is now doing math:
if you don't like the answer, change the facts.
You assume wrong, you can't just insert parentheses there and say "see? It's 2."
In honor of you being continually wrong, here's Dr. Cox:
You didn't attend michigan did you?
this thread is going to end up exactly like the RCMB thread.
The fraction symbol only applies to the next object, which in this case is the two.
Cmon man. PEMDAS. Except when there's multiplication or division in the problem you just do the one that comes first in the problem. Same goes with adding and subtracting, you do whichever operation comes first in the problem.
48÷2(9+3) You have do parentheses first, so 48÷2(12). Then the division comes first, so you do 48÷2 so 24(12)= 288
We have our new Shibboleth!!!
Yeah if it was written that way. Which it isn't.
48/2(9+3) is the same as 48/2*12 which is 24*12 or 288
the best part is that DMB Sparty guy who has a signature that says walmart wolverines.... in the mean time he keeps saying its 2. what a joke this person is
Sparty lulz aside, this is an embarrassment to Big Ten academics
The common talk radio meme is that only about a third of the posters on this board went to UM (and the rest went to Walmart) while 99% of the Spartan posters went to MSU. I wonder how they would fare with this math marvel?
Please = parenthesis
Remember = Raise to power
My = Multiply
Dear = Divide
Aunt = Add
Sally = Subtract
Multiply comes before divide & the answer is 2.
What a maroon...
I remember that.
"Can we please delete this thread, we don't need to give rival schools any more cannon fodder?"
This thread is full of irony.
We've got 30+ comments in a thread, 90% of which are making fun of Sparty. We've had one guy get the wrong answer.
The RCMB thread is approaching 500 comments, and they're STILL DEBATING THE ANSWER.
but that one guy is a sparty, i think.
Mathway dot com solved it this way....
yeah, fuck you, you arrogant pieces of shit who think because you go to U of M you are automatically smarter than everybody else.
edit: douchey mgoblog users!!!
The question doesn't have all that in the denominator.
Can we just stop?
dude, shut the fuck up. the division sign is also "/" which means, read left to right, all things past the division sign are inherently in the denominator. all you fuckers can talk shit but when it turns out you are wrong you turn into pussies
It doesn't always mean this "/". It only divides the 48 by 2.
you should ride your white pony over to the rcmb and join in on their fun.
i don't care which direction you read that...
If by U of M you mean Underoos of Monkey's, because a damn child could do that problem.
you know whats funny? if you enter it in CORRECTLY in that website you get 288.
Go and try it. I dare you.
im glad you are further demonstrating how dumb you are. kinda funny. keep it up
i typed it in "48 (division sign) 2(9+3)" - exactly how it was written in the thread, and it gave me a 2. perhaps you can show me what typing it in "correctly" looks like?
That's because the Internet is limited. It's not letting you do it how it is supposed to be. It's like putting in an entire Spanish article on google translator and it making very little sense because of all the crap grammar stuff.
Or, since it's basic math that any 5th grader could do and not algebra, you could try that.
Or wait, no, if you type it in correctly in the algebra section, it actually gives you the correct answer.
man just stop marinading in your own failure, you know you're wrong and you're continuing this farce for some depressing reason.
Being right doesn't make us arrogant. You're still going with this inverse elitism shtick?
yeah, fuck you, you arrogant pieces of shit who think because you go to U of M you are automatically smarter than everybody else.
ur doing it wrong all meatchicken fans are walmarterines who didn't go to umaa
When I say that we don't think we're necessarily smarter than anyone else... but we do think that the ability to do (and understand) a simple grade school order-of-operations problem puts a point in our column.
Douchey MGoBlog User
I'm a junior in high school and I can solve that perfectly fine...
We're not automatically smarter than everyone else; we're only automatically smarter than the people who think the answer is 2.
Because we went to U-M we KNOW we're smarter than everyone else...
This was entered: 48/2(9+3)
of someone looking confused to immitate what I imagine the people of RCMB look like while discussing the problem. It just so happens that is the person who came up lol
That you're trying to sell.
I'm not buying.
NO POLITICS! Why is that so hard for people to understand?
and type confused person into google and click images. That is on the top row, it made me chuckle to see, so I picked it. Quite doing this:
Take this crap somewhere else, I come on here to get away from that shit.
from RCMB are the ones that posit: If you rewrite the equation, and look at it like this, the answer is 2.
holy shit, you are all so far removed from reality at this university it is scary. You just can't believe you would ever be wrong. If this is something professors are actually telling you in your classes then its a good thing snyder is cutting education funding
in the thing you just wrote. I will repeat it to you.
"You just can't believe you would ever be wrong."
What happens when you look in a mirror?
I went to UM-Dearborn. It's a very mediocre school. I am often wrong about things.
But the answer is definitely 288.
and bought a calculator. It is 288.
hahaa I saw this come up on another forum (not the bodybuilding one) a few days ago and it exploded to some ridiculous amount of posts. Just lock this up now before it's too late.
A lot of people are getting 2 because they're so used to dealing with fractional problems, (i.e. they think the 2(9+3) is in the denominator). This question is designed to use PEMBAS on an problem that's annoying to read imo. People who say 2 aren't necessarily stupid, just making an honest mistake out of habit. People who say "OMG ITS 2 LOCK THIS THREAD LOLWTFBBQ' are stupid. However, this seems to constitute 90% of the RCMB.
Thanks for the lulz, Sparty. =D
My calculator comes up with 2 and I punched it in the exact same way.
I don't know what that means, but I think it means I'm right, you're wrong, and Sparty sucks.
Edit: when I punch in "48 / 2(9 + 3)" I get 2, and when I punch in "48 / 2 * (9+3)" I get 288. Pretty sure that means my calculator was programmed by Sparties.
just because the parens look like theyre in the denominator doesnt mean they are. that equation essentially reads 48 * 1/2 * (9+3) = 288
This is why people shouldn't get in the habit of using calculators to do arithmetic.
Anyone familiar with order of operations (remember "Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally") should have no trouble doing this mentally .
Then I went to my calculator and did it. But yes I agree with you on that one. Any monkey can just push buttons on a calculator and get an answer but not learn a damn thing.
This is what happens to your board when your basketball team drops out in the 1st round and your hockey team fails to make them playoffs. Thank God we are better than these meat heads...
Why can't I push the button? I want to know how
in your name stands for Western, then keep trying and I'll explain it to you and Spartans all at the same time later on.
20 pages. Still no consensus.
If you can't get into college...
... go to State.
If you can't get into State . . .
In the butthole
If you can't get into college and you know you really SUCK!
If you can't get into college, go to State.
This is why, when doing spreadsheets or databases, I throw in the extra set of parentheses to remove ambiguity.
people don't know that you multiply the things inside the parenthesis by the things outside. In this case, the other set of parenthesis was simply left out. (48/2)(9+3)
You never know what kinds of hidden opportunities for error exist in the programming ... Excel has nailed me before ... and case in point, "mathway.com"
I may be stupid, but I'm also drunk...and I still did it in my head within seconds.
this was all over 4chan and reddit today. and wherever it popped up, people argued about the answer.
The problem with this math equation is that whoever created it, is either an idiot or wanted to create ambiguity in the answer. Without a "word problem" associated with this, we have no idea what the equation is supposed to mean. And nobody in their right mind would create that equation without a second parenthesis if needed.
If I ran across a lab book that had that equation in it, I'd flog whoever was responsible.
It doesn't matter what it's "supposed" to mean. The correctness of a solution has nothing to do with what the author meant to write, but what he actually wrote. And while it may appear ambiguous to many, it is not actually ambiguous. It should be pretty obvious this was written intentionally to try to trip people up, at which it succeeds more than I would have ever thought to hilarious and somewhat freightening effect.
I'm wondering if white_pony_rocks has figured out he was wrong so he decided not to post on this thread anymore or if he still thinks he is right so he's back on tRCMB bragging about how dumb he thinks we are
no, i was busy fucking my hot asian gf and your mom at the same time, she gives really good head (both of them)
Stop it, you were beating off with a belt around your neck. There's no shame in that.
and since i'm still talking to you im obviously better at it than david carradine
And you are a celebrity.
And it is front-page news.
CRex is that you?
I find this even less likely than you getting the math problem right....
Dan quale, is that you?
Do we have to phone Mathlete for whitepony?
is the fact that half the people who got the right answer, did so in the wrong way.
Yeah they got 2, but a lot of them seem to think that it's because multiplication trumps division (which it doesn't) and not because the 2 is tied to the (9+3) by the distributive property. I get the feeling they (those who got 2 by the wrong means) would be saying 288 if they thought multiplication didn't trump division.
The distributive property has nothing to do with the order of operations.
Half of the people who got 2 as there answer got it in PEMDAS, the M is technically before the D , so they think that multiplication comes before division... therefore they see the 2 multiplied by (9+3) and that's why they do that first, otherwise a lot of them would likely end up with 288.
Whereas the correct way multiplies the 2 and the (9+3) but for different reasons.
I'm saying they're getting the right answer but if they didn't think that multiplication came first a lot of them would end up with 288.
The answer isn't 2. You reference a 2 being in the expression, but there is no two. The expression reads "(1/2)*(48)*(9+3)."
48÷2(9+3), that is where the 2 is coming from. If you're going to change the 2 to a 1/2 then you have to change the relationship between it and the (9+3), it would then become 48*.5/(9+3)
That's not how single line operations work. Type the expression as it is presented into Excel, and you'll get 288. The reason is because the division operator applies only to the next constant or "object," which is the 2.
The answer is 288, there is no ambiguity involved. If you think the answer is 2, you're wrong. Changing the 2 to 1/2 does not change its relationship to 9+3, because the operation between the 48 and the 2 happens first. 48*(1/2) = 48/2, regardless of the second part of the equation, because this operation is performed first. Please stop, you're pushing our community dangerously close to RCMB territory with this ignorance.
I am self appointing myself as the engineering school representative. We agree with you. The only correct answer is 288. Math is not subjective.
Thank you. I am upset and frankly surprised by how many people are responding with 2.
The division sign does not mean divide by everything to its right in the expression, unless everything to its right is parenthesized. You just divide my the next term. I thought this was like 6th grade math
288 is the right answer. There is no valid "different reason" for combining the 2 and (9+3). The division sign doesn't mean everything after it is denominator.
I promise this is true. Take a cold shower and look at it again.
2(9+3) has to be reduced first, then you can deal with the 48.
Why do you think it has to be reduced first? I think you're misreading the problem as 48/(2(9+3)). That's the only situation in which you'd combine them first.
perentheses come first, and 48÷2(9+3) is the same as 48÷[2(9+3)], therefore the [2(9+3)] has to be done first.
No you can't just pretend parentheses exist after the division sign where they aren't written.
the 2 is being multiplied by the 9+3 in the parentheses, therefore you have reduce that part first.
Since the 48 has no relationship to the 9+3 in the parentheses it gets done afterward.
You have a point Saunders.
An incorrect one, but a point nonetheless.
I'm not going to pretend to be a math genius (I know what I'm doing though), and since both my parents are mathematicians, my father was an Airforce aerospace engineer for twenty years, and my mother was an Airforce Electrical engineer for 10 years and still teaches math when both of them, who have something like 5 math degrees between them, agree on something like this I'm inclined to believe them.
Just plug it into excel if you want the counter opinion of many more engineers.
Your mom goes to college.
Facepalm. Go to google. Copy the original problem reproduced here: 48/2(9+3)=
and paste it into the search box. Hit enter.
Click the find documents option. Every forum in existence has quarelled over this.
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*(1/(2*9))) + (48*(1/(2*3))) =
2.66667 + 8 =
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.
2 does not go with the (9+3). 48 and 2 are together so (48/2)(9+3)---->(24)(12)= 288
it's the same as 48÷[2(9+3)]
The problem is 48/2(9+3) which is the same as (48/2)(9+3). If you want to get an answer of 2, you'd have to write it as 48/[2(9+3)] in the first place which means that they're two completely different problems.
because the 2 is being multiplied by the 9+3 in the parentheses, therefore you have reduce that part first.
Then you can take the result of that and divide 48 by it. Because the 48 has no relationshipr with the (9+3) it gets done last.
for the last time, the 2 does not go with the parentheses BECAUSE the 48 is in front of it! When you have simply 2(9+3) which equals 24 the 2 gets distributed. But that isn't the case. The only way the 2 can go with the (9+3) is if you put it in another set of parentheses.
48/2(9+3) is what the problem is
48/(2(9+3)) is what would get you 2, but that isn't the same problem that's being asked.
You're wrong. The distrubition property is a property of multiplication, and since multiplication and division have the same priority, you work left to right after adding 9 and 3. You don't distribute the 2 first.
the 2 is tied to the (9+3), you have to distribute it between them before you can deal with the 48. To put the equation another way it's the same as 48/[2(9+3)]
the 9 and 3 are added before any multiplication or division occurs
48 is divided by the result of 2x(9+3) - which is 24, therefore the answer is 2. My original point is that half the people who got 2 somehow got it by doing the math wrong.
All the people who got 2 somehow got it by doing the math wrong.
The distributive property is a statement of equivalence. It is not a procedure. If you factor out to 2*9 and 2*3 and get a different answer than you would if you didn't factor the terms out, it's a sign that YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG
!!! does not equal !!!
Therefore the distributive property has been incorrectly applied.
LOL, this problem has gotten everywhere. It was posted in Misc on bodybuilding.com (I posted in it) and got over 3000 poll votes (between 2 and 288) and an 80 page thread.
The answer is 288 damnit! We're still fighting about it over there...
Haha this made my night. By far one of the best discussions on their blog I've read in a while.
If it were written in terms of goats and cows, I think they might get it...
If you have a longer night, read this:
Haha comedy gold! And the best part is how people take it so personally when they're told they're wrong.
Where the fuck is Will Hunting when you need him.
being kept these days?
I don't know guys, I've done it like 20 times and I've gotten 65 every time. Then again, I was a sociology major.
Or maybe it's because I'M BANGING LIKE 10 ASIANS AND LATINAS AND YOUR MOM AND SISTER AND STEP-DAD ALL WITH 3 TI-11,000,000S IN MY HAND RIPPING THROUGH SOME MATH YOU DUMB MICHIGAN GRADS/STUDENTS!!!!1!!1!
This simple math problem has spread through the interwebz like a bad case of herpes. I'm pretty sure if everyone finally comes to a consensus on the correct answer, something is going to happen. This must be the final boss of the internet.
I did a google search. Jesus damn, this thing is everywhere you look. Every virus writer in the world just got punked so hard and wishes they could write something to spread as quickly.
I understand arguments about movies, music, sports, etc. because none of these things are absolute. But math. I mean, the internet will find a reason for a 20-page message board about anything.
As somebody on RCMB correctly pointed out, applying algebraic functions to an arithmetic problem isn't correct.
doesn't mean you distribute the 2. If it was written as 48/[2(9+3)], then yes, 2 would be correct.
It's not so the correct solution is...
48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12)
48/2(12) = 24(12)
24(12) = 288
It might cause less confusion if you write it this way:
48 / 2(9+3)=
48 / 2(12)=
48 / 2 * 12 =
24 * 12 =
When you remove the parentheses it makes it much eaisier to read IMO
My favorite part is that the people who are arguing that it's actually 2 know deep down in their heart that it's 288, but they just don't want to admit to themselves they got it wrong at first. I know because I was there for about 10 minutes.
I will say this though: 99.9% of the time someone writes 2(9+3) within some larger equation, they mean (2(9+3)) regardless of context. The question isn't technically ambiguous, but it's designed to go against how anyone that has graduated from middle school would write it out. Besides this question and probably a couple when we were learning about order of operations in 3rd grade, I've never seen an equation written out this way instead of (48/2)(9+3)
It's basic arithmetic and you guys spend all this time messing with it. Get a life.
It's the internet and we're amusing our feeble minds and you're telling us to get a life for it.
Get a life.
I just want to ask how people can be sure that the 48 isn't sitting on top of a wide bar that is resting on top of the 2(9+3) part. You wouldn't include a second set of parenthesis if you just had 2(9+3) as the denominator.
The original question used an actual division sign I believe. Using a / is actually ambiguous because it technically could mean either division or represent the separation of a numerator and denominator.
Precisely I'm not embarassed to say I was quite confused when I first read it on this site. Then, I went to the original link and saw it written with the division sign and immediately had an "ah ha!" moment.
By the way, I think it's 2, not 288.
If you saw 1/2x, you shouldn't equate that to .5x (that is, 1 divided by 2 then times x), you should read 1 divided by (2x). I think the fact that my calculator gives two different answers depending on whether you put a multiplication sign in between 2 and (9+3) is proof enough for me.
Goddamnit you guys are making this thread as bad as the RCMB one. The answer is 288, plain and simple. 2(9+3) = 2*(9+3) explicitly, if your calculator is giving you a different answer based on the presence of absence of a multiplication symbol, it's time for you to get a new calculator. Although I take it you're not the kind of person to listen to reason, so I present Exhibit A.
Here's more proof.
That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. ... 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.
Emphasis mine. So there you go. It's fucking 2. My calculator is doing it right. I take back what I said about it earlier, about being programmed by Sparties.
Link for proof:
Because "purplemath.com" is the definitive source on all things mathematics, right?
This is a website run by some elementary school teacher, that hasn't been updated in about 10 years, basing its "proofs" off of faulty programming on old calculators.
I'm not using any external sources here, I have an undergraduate degree in mathematics and am currently doing graduate work in the field, working on a Master's then a Ph.D. I am telling you, with full qualification, that that site is blatantly WRONG.
you have purplemath.com
I have wikipedia (i trust it more than your sketchy website), google, wolfram, matlab, excel, my ti83, my ti84, and my engineering degree which all say you are wrong.
oh my f***ing god
it's 48÷2(9+3). It is not an ambiguous formula. If you write a / instead of a ÷ order of operations still dictates 288.
The only way to get 1/2x to mean 1/(2x) is if it is drawn as a fraction as in .
Lets say we are given 48/2(9+3). The answer is NEVER 2 unless it is EXPLICITLY written as
Listen, man, if it wasn't an ambiguous formula, the entire blogotubes around the entire world wouldn't be turning this into an abortion debate.
And you're overinterpreting the 1/2x thing, I'm bound by the limitations of one line and the laziness not to figure out how to do that fraction thing you did. But there's still no algebra textbook in the world that'll write 1/2x when they mean .5x for just such anti-ambiguity reasons.
P.S. the answer is still 2, flat-earther.
It's not ambiguous. People on the internet getting this wrong is just an indictment of our education system.
Only if our education system presents this question in all seriousness and expects the same answer every time. This question is the math equivalent of asking "what's the first letter in the alphabet" and then laughing at the dumbasses that say "A" when you say it's "T." It's just asking the question in such a way that you know there'll be mixed messages.
lol actually, you woudl be the one saying T. If you answer t, you are not including the word alphabet in the question.
What's the first letter in the alphabet?
What's the first letter in the? alphabet.
It's the same thing as adding parentheses that aren't there.
Aigh, haven't you heard that one before? The joke is where the quotation marks go, has nothing to do with including a word or not. "What's the first letter in 'the alphabet'?" vs. "What's the first letter in the alphabet?"
Regardles, math is not ambiguous, while language can have many interpretations.
You really aren't proving anything by showing me a joke.
48 / 2(9+3) is just language. You used Excel as one of your reasons why you're right (I don't even want to know why you need two graphing calculators) - I don't know about you but Excel won't even let me enter that formula. It demands I put in the multiplication sign. So Microsoft, at least, thinks there's something ambiguous about it, because it won't even do that problem. If the formula itself is bullshit, then sorry, it's ambiguous. Math may not be ambiguous, but it requires language for expression, and if the language is inadequate, you change the language. So we stopped using Roman numerals. And we can write our questions so that nobody has to argue over the answer to them.
It's probably more because the programmers at microsoft wanted to make sure that you are inputting the equation that you mean to input.
Either way 4*8=4(8) These are not any different.
The formula is bullshit? What?
Sure math requires language to express it, but there are right and wrong ways to express it. If someone uses inadequate language, then his or her language is wrong. The math still says the same thing.
I'm sick of arguing this
For the distributive property when we do a*b(c+d), both the a and the b get distributed to the (c+d). It works the same if we have a÷b(c+d). a÷b gets distributed to (c+d).
48÷2(9+3)= 24(9+3) = 216+ 72 = 288
This is just how it works.
the United States of America,
It depends on how it's written.
1.) 48/2(9+3) = 2 or 288
---------- x (9+3) = 288
-------- = 2
It all depends on how you interpret the denominator with the way it's written. Some people interpret it as number 2 and others intepret it as number 3.
Dear CHRIST people. There is no room for interpretation! A division sign is a division sign, not a fraction. 48/2 is just that. The only way it could be interpreted as you did in your third example is if it were written as 48/(2(9+3)). Which it IS NOT.
Yes you could write the formula differently to get 2 as an answer, however, the formula is not written in this way, and you can't just arbitrarily change the formula.
The answer is 288, there is no other answer.
Why do you use the word interpret? The reason we have order of operations is so we don't have to interpret. If someone meant for 2(9+3) to be a denominator they would put () around the whole thing or write it as two lines or something. But that didn't happen. So you just use the order of operations. And you get 288.
"A horizontal fractional line also acts as a symbol of grouping"
I don't know where you're seeing a horizontal bar, but when I read it, it had an actual division sign, not a bar, so it shouldn't be ambiguous at all.
Again, it was never written with a horizontal fractional line. Yes, if you write it differently you can get a different result. This is the same as if I said it would be different if I took the () away.
We're not going to agree on this. Bottom line is that the problem is missing a pair of parens, whether they are supposed to be around (48/2) or around [2(9+3)] is unknown.
Those extra parentheses are unnecessary because of the order of operations. For people who don't understand order of operations, the extra parentheses would help, if you know the rules they just aren't necessary.
You can write (3 * 2) + 5, but you don't have to add those parentheses. You can just write 3 * 2 + 5. Same thing in the case here.
You aren't going to agree on it because you are wrong. A divide sign does not equal a fraction.
ok, so i fnally figured it out after 7.5 million years.........the answer is 42
Don't ever change.
edit: also, im pretty sure everybody thinks im bipolar
Neg me if you want to, but I don't think the answer is necessarily 288. The answer is we don't know. And that damned lack-of-multiplication-symbol is the ONLY reason why it's ambiguous.
The real question is, is there a universal rule for "implied" multiplication in order of operations? Sure, multiplication is multiplication you'd think, but I've searched several places that come up with different answers.
Does ab = a*b, or does ab = (a*b)? Depends on who you talk to. It may be against the grain with the majority here, but there are some places and some algebra textbooks that state implied multiplication has higher precedence than explicit in order of ops. TI-calculators actually give implied multiplication higher precedence, so you get a different answer depending on whether you put the * in or not. There is no universally-accepted convention for implied multiplication in order of operations. If there is, please prove me wrong. I hate this problem for it.
Though I will say 288 is MORE LIKELY the correct answer.
But the real answer is whoever made this a math problem should be shot in the face.
Honestly, if there really was a 100% actual totally true verifiable answer, this wouldn't be the secular equivalent of a creationism debate.
I say it's 2 since I think ab takes precedence over a*b. But since that asshole Newton managed to invent an entire branch of mathematics on his own and didn't take any time to leave us the definitive answer to this question, we're left with this shitstorm.
You can say what you want, but you are wrong.
Is use some fucking parantheses and nobody will get confused in the first place. The 'problem' here is TRYING to confuse people...when simply adding another set of parenthesis eliminates all doubt.
I'm not going to lie, my gut wants to say the answer is 2 because I'm so used to distributing implied multiplication in algebraic variables all the time (as in 2(x+y)=2x+2y). But after waaaaaaaay too much research into this, I have no effing clue but think 288 is more likely correct.
No, No, No, No, NO! This is not subjective, this is why order of operations exists in the first place! ab = a*b EXPLICITLY, there is no such thing as a "more dominant multiplication". Also, order of operations and simple algebra existed waaaaaay before Newton buddy.
This whole question is an example of troll math, which shows up all over the internet, and only gets perpetuated because idiots like YOU don't realize that there is no room for interpretation, there is only one right answer to the formula. Here's another example:
Yes, wonderful, you're arguing that there's positively no ambiguity in the answer because algebra NEVER has any ambiguity and then you use the troll math that you profess to hate in order to.....prove that algebra can be awfully damn ambiguous? I'm trolling you and I'm not even trying to, because your sarcasm meter is running low on batteries. Hint: the Newton thing was a joke.
No, there is not ambiguity or subjectivity in math.
The troll math doesn't prove that there IS ambiguity, it proves that there are stupid people out there that don't know all the laws/rules of mathematics and can be easily tricked.
It conclusively proves that you can't divide by zero. In this case, because a=b, the term (a^2 - ab) is equal to zero.
C'mon, man... at this point you're just being stubborn. Give in to the dark side (and by "dark side" here, I mean "the people who are mathematically correct")
you wanna really confuse them? lets see how they work with fractions 48/7(9+3) = ???
That isn't a fraction in the way that you're implying. / and the division sign can be interchanged freely. If you want to make that a fraction like you're thinking 48/(7(9+3)) is the correct notation.
since when is 48/7 not a fraction? obviously 48/84(your example) is a fraction, but im talking (48/7)(12) or 576/7 which is roughly 82.28
So you're talking about an example exactly the same as the problem we've been talking about, but instead of a 2 you use a 7, mind boggling...
yes...except 2 works evenly, hence the whole "fractions" thing lol
and as far as the original, its 288. Please excuse my dear aunt sally guarantees that
So you're saying the problem is somehow harder because 48/7 is not an integer like 48/2 is? If you say so...
how many more pages will this grow to over here? Lol.
Ignorance in simple mathematical concepts is not simply limited to fans of lesser universities.
Get your shit together people.
What the fuck is going on in this thread?
For those of you who think this is so obvious:
Let a=48, b=2, c=12.
What is a/bc?
I think there is some argument to be made that the implied multiplication (bc) has higher precedence than the division. Interestingly, Wolfram Alpha interprets 48/2(9+3) as 288 but a/bc, and also a/b(c), as a/(bc). In any real situation this expression should be clarified; it's just poorly written as is and there's no need to establish a correct interpretation.
that is still the same thing, 48/2=24x12=288 the laws of math dont change, without paranthesis you go from left to right. for example, 8x7/2 with many calculators, not scientific ones, when you type 8x7, when you try to hit another sign it shows 56. you are then allowed to divide by 2 for 23
It's strange that it is ignoring the order of operations when you give it algebra but uses them properly with arithmetic. Maybe when you give it algebra it is trying to fix your equation to what you most likely meant because you used parentheses improperly. It's pretty strange, and i wonder if they are aware of the discrepancy.
Yeah, I'm going to go with Wolfram is mainly used by mathematicians/engineers who know their order of operations, so they're trying to save us hassle when typing in long equations. I know long fractions in big ODEs are a pain in the ass to type out with standard characters, but it is strange.
If a = 48, b = 2, and c = 12, then a/bc = 48/212 = 0.23
The answer is actually 0.23
That's it. That's all I got.
I wish one of you smart bastards would take the deriviative of this and simplify it. I'm doing some optimization calc and keep coming up with the wrong answer.
just put it into wolfram alpha.
I can't believe this is happening.
M credits. You're only...like...288 away from 1000.
I graduated from tOSU and I know it's 288... Just sayin...
And arguing about a math problem has taken over the internet. I remember what we did before there was the Internet, and on Friday we'd go out, drink, meet women....and argue about math problems IN PERSON. Now get off my lawn.
You know this is going to be the longest thread, ever......
RCMB folks are starting to take notice of our thread.
This thread saddens me.
At least ours is only 6 pages long as opposed to 20, and it seems we only have one troll (white_pony) and two stubborn fools (TRSaunders, MaizeandBlueWahoo) insisting that it's the wrong answer. RCMB seems to be a much more even split, so I guess I can take solace in that, but it's still surprising how adamant some people are in their ignorance.
Why is your screen name a bar that has been closed for 2 years on Halsted Street in Lincoln Park, Chicago? Just curious; kinda obscure. Used to be a good time, Goodbar, in like 2004.
it closed? shitty. wasnt it an iowa bar?
The TI-89, which is quite possibly the best thing ever, says 288. I trust it. Also, I'll admit that I was tempted to say 2 at first until I thought about it a little harder. Its really easy to just lump the 2 with the (9+3) based on what you are used to seeing.
I am going to end the thread right now:
You can not apply algebraic concepts to a problem that is not algebraic
a(9+3) is not the same as 2(9+3)
what if a=2? Just sayin'...
They're equivalent but not read the same.
The most convincing argument I've read on here is 48 * 1/2 * (9/3). This is how everyone should think of this problem.
It's syntactically incorrect. 2 is not a recognized function.
And to think this thread was meant to make fun of Sparty because their thread went on endlessly. Irony can be pretty ironic.
I went to bed at midnight. Things were FINE at midnight. We had like 100 comments, and they were almost all mocking Sparty's inability to do basic math. WTF happened?
In our defense, I will say that I only count three people who are riding the "2" train to the end of the tracks, and a couple more "2-apologists" who argue that the question is ambiguous. But still...
Graduate from the school of mathematics I have to say this thread is really sad. I can't believe the OP provided the correct answer and loads of people that apparently know nothing about math came back and tried to argue in the other direction. Know your strengths, people.
This thread really illustrates what used to piss me off at Michigan. How come 2 semesters of english are required, but only "quantitative reasoning" on the mathematical side? It is obvious that a high percentage of graduates from all of our schools lack sufficient math and science.
I'm pretty sure I learned this in middle school. SHAME people, SHAME.
It seems like 3 or 4 people were really arguing for a different answer, and one of them is pretty clearly just trolling.
Also, after spending some time reading the RCMB thread, I am firmly behind teaching as much English as possible. I doubt the two-semester requirement is the chasm that separates us from them grammatically, but I'm not willing to take that chance.
Or Michigan can keep things the way they are. One semester of math is all I needed as it has nothing to do with my profession. One more semester would have been a waste of money and I wouldn't have cared enough to remember any of it.
They probably emphasize English more than mathematics in fields that specialize in neither because while many people won't need to do trivial order of operations problems like this, pretty much every human being needs to communicate effectively.
The 2 camp has shamed us all with their unrelenting idiocy. Here's a hint, people: those participation trophies you received as kids... No one cares about them. In big people world, there is a difference between winners and losers.
For the record, in post #111 I clearly illustrated how you troglodytes were misusing and misunderstanding the distributive property. Should have been absolutely settled then... Though that it would even take that much is pathetic.
There's a lot of trolling going on so I thought I'd help the trolls out:
Definition of Troglodyte
1: a member of any of vcarious peoples (as in antiquity) whol live or were reputed to live chiefly in caves
2: a person characterized by reclusive habits or outmodeled or reactionary attitudes
I assumed it was somehow related to Strongbad:
phone-induced double post
While I was originally in the 2 camp, I will admit I have forgotten almost everything about the basic rules of math. I just got by with a basic idea of how everything worked, which got me through calc3, a good MCAT, and a great GMAT score(both better quantitatively than verbal). I always just went with the number right next to the parenthesis meaning it was kind of "pinned" to it and was multiplied by that number. So maybe the explicit rules say that the proper way to read the equation results in the answer being 288, but every time I look at it it looks like 2. Doesn't matter though because no one will write something that ambiguous where it really matters, I know most people used sufficient () to be clear in their work.
I always assumed the same thing, too. Probably because from 9th grade on the only equations necessary to learn were the equations of a line. So y1 - y2 = m(x1 - x2). Y= m(x)+b. That type of thing, but then I read what that sparty said on page 1 and was like OH DUR... losing.
The () only indicates that they should be done first. If something is written like this x() then it's really short hand for x*()
So essentially this problem can be written as: 48 ÷ 2 * 12
I never took math in undergrad at U of M (got it waived). So I was expecting to be overwhelmed by the level of math in the debate.
Imagine my relief when I found it was over basic rules. The answer is 288.
Guess my 36 on the math ACT held up...
A math ACT of 36÷2(5-4) would have held up.
I'm not surprised this thread ended up exactly like the thread on the MSU board. The OP was incredibly arrogant and this ended up being kind of funny.
Even Texas Instruments calculators are confused:
See, that's only because when the TI-85 came out, they hadn't yet invented the kind of math that is needed to solve this question.
Also, I graduate this year and haven't taken any math except stats (doesn't count). This entire thing shamed me. I go to Michigan and forgot sixth grade math, how did I get here?
I know you're being facetious, but it's just the way they're programmed. The TI-85 is programmed to follow PEMDAS, while the TI-86 is programmed to go from left to right when you have both a division and a multiplication.
that the TI-85 is programmed poorly
We have already gone over this. I gave a brief history of TI calculators. TI-85 is the second oldest TI graphing calculator. 83,84,86,89,92 and some others all came after it and 83,84,86 all give 288. I haven't seen anyoene post about an 89 or 92.
They fixed their mistake in the newer models. End of story
Up to 24 pages, almost 600 posts and 17,000 views!!!
And they claim that we are arguing as much as they are!
RCMB is averaging 22.6 posts per hour, while MGoBoard is averaging 16.8 posts per hour (just on this topic). So the difference isn't that big...
You also have to take into account two things:
1) The topic on RCMB was started in the middle of the morning yesterday--that means lots of views throughout the day. The topic on MGoBoard was started at night--that means less views as many people are out and/or sleeping on a Friday night.
2) RCMB has more activity overall than MGoBoard. More users posting per hour, more posts per hour... whatever objective metric you want to use to measure message board activity.
Parens then division and multiplication from left to right. It's not "up for debate" or a matter of "perspective" it is what it is and if you don't get it, you are WRONG. Holy moley are some students so self possessed and accustomed to degrading standards they truly think the RULES OF MATH are subjective? *sigh* atleast this thread wasonly 1/3 filled with fail unlike the Sparty one.
The answer is 2
Lets use some alegebra to back up my answer, we will substitute x for 9.
48/2(x+3) = 2
48/2 = 2/(x+3)
24 = 2/(x+3)
24/2 = x + 3
12 = x + 3
12 - 3 = x
9 = x
the above is paramount to
48/2*(x+3) = 2
24 * (x+3) = 2
24 = 2/(x+3)
24/2 = x+3
12-3 = x
9 = x
try that with 288
48/2 * (x+3) = 288
24 * (x+3) = 288
24 = 288/(x+3)
24/288 = x + 3
.08 = x +3
.08 - 3 = x
-2.92 = x
Here is the correct math.
48/2(x+3) = 2
48/2 = 2/(x+3)
24 = 2/(x+3)
24/2 = 1/(x + 3)
12 = 1/(x + 3)
1/12 = x+3
the above is paramount to
48/2*(x+3) = 2
24 * (x+3) = 2
24 = 2/(x+3)
24/2 = 1/(x+3)
try that with 288
48/2 * (x+3) = 288
24 * (x+3) = 288
24 = 288/(x+3)
24/288 = 1/(x + 3)
12 = x+3
Well I guess I fail at math
At least you admit to it. There are some fools still insisting it's 2, despite being shown repeatedly how they're wrong.
Agree to disagree. All I've seen are people changing the equation. As it is written, the answer is 2. Plain and simple.
"24 = 2/(x+3)
24/2 = x + 3"
I miss magic division.