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.
the button reading "press" isn't actually a pressable button.
20 pages. Still no consensus.
If you can't get into college...
... go to State.
If you can't get into State . . .
shoot yourself
Re-apply.
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"
Spartee On...Lol.
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....
Potatoe
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
and I haven't turned my calculator on since 1992. I hope the batteries are still good.
288.
I learned that from a cheerleader I used to sit next to in class...
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.