Solve 48

[Stetson]

Haha, what are you bringing into this argument, relativism?

Sure there are many ways to interpret this question. But there is only one correct way. Any other way is incorrect.

48?2(9+3) is the same thing as 48/2*(9+3). It is also the same thing as 48*(9+3)/2, 48*0.5*(9+3), 48/2*1*(9+3), etc. It is NOT the same thing as 48/(2(9+3)).

My point was mainly that people seem to be spending lots of post space on solving the equation after you interpret it into a different form, when really what we should be discussing is that interpretation.

I have seen arguments on both sides of this interpretation in this thread, including some that cite that multiplication and juxtaposition as having slightly different precedence, and some that simply do not acknowledge juxtaposition in the order of operations.

I'm mostly saying that we need sources, one way or another, and also the authority of that source needs to be considered.

Anyway, just because an equation can be solved in exactly one correct way doesn't mean that it still can't be criticized for being unclear. I'm pretty sure if I turned in an answer formatted like the original equation in a college math class that I could expect points taken off for not writing it more clearly. I've heard from professors many times that adding more parentheses to better show your intent is a good thing, even if it would be technically correct without them.

[ArKeYa]

You could have just said you don't know/recognize juxtaposition instead of writing all that unnecessary junk.

Again the problem is ambiguous. There is no absolute correct answer. It's 2 if you recognize juxtaposition, and 288 if not. No need to be an ass.

[Julius Caro]

My point was mainly that people seem to be spending lots of post space on solving the equation after you interpret it into a different form, when really what we should be discussing is that interpretation.

I have seen arguments on both sides of this interpretation in this thread, including some that cite that multiplication and juxtaposition as having slightly different precedence, and some that simply do not acknowledge juxtaposition in the order of operations.

I'm mostly saying that we need sources, one way or another, and also the authority of that source needs to be considered.

Anyway, just because an equation can be solved in exactly one correct way doesn't mean that it still can't be criticized for being unclear. I'm pretty sure if I turned in an answer formatted like the original equation in a college math class that I could expect points taken off for not writing it more clearly. I've heard from professors many times that adding more parentheses to better show your intent is a good thing, even if it would be technically correct without them.

This is basic Math, with well established rules. There's no "slightly different precedence", and there isnt even room for interpretation. Interpretation? REALLY? The only way an equation expressed that way would be open to interpretation is if it was expressed incorrectly. If it's not, there's only one way to solve it. And I think we have established it IS expressed correctly, albeit in a confusing way. It's still 288.

You could have just said you don't know/recognize juxtaposition instead of writing all that unnecessary junk.

Again the problem is ambiguous. There is no absolute correct answer. It's 2 if you recognize juxtaposition, and 288 if not. No need to be an ass.

If "juxtaposition" means that the juxtaposed number has a higher precedence than multiplication 2x^2 would be 4*x^2 instead of 2*x^2. Which we all know is not the case.

[Stetson]

This is basic Math, with well established rules. There's no "slightly different precedence", and there isnt even room for interpretation. Interpretation? REALLY? The only way an equation expressed that way would be open to interpretation is if it was expressed incorrectly. If it's not, there's only one way to solve it. And I think we have established it IS expressed correctly, albeit in a confusing way. It's still 288.

I've seen a couple of sources (not sure of credibility) that cite the rule of juxtaposition as being valid. I've seen people cite their 4th grade teacher and wikipedia in response.

[Stetson]

The answer is 288.

Every other answer is moronic.

Thank you for your insightful, detailed, and well-cited explanation.

[Julius Caro]

I've seen a couple of sources (not sure of credibility) that cite the rule of juxtaposition as being valid. I've seen people cite their 4th grade teacher and wikipedia in response.

I would like to see those sources. Because all I get using google to look for "Juxtaposition rule" leads me to this very same thread on different forums, all of them with insane amount of pages arguing this. Which makes me think that no such thing even exists in the first place.

[Teebor]

42 - FORTY TWO

/thread :D

[lamminium]

In all computer algebra systems, 48/2(9+3) is interpreted to be 48 / 2 * (9 + 3).

For instance, if I write f(x) = 1/2tan(x), the only correct interpretation is f(x) = 1/2*tan(x), not 1/(2*tan(x)). It's a common rule that groups that must be evaluated as a whole ought to be enclosed by brackets to avoid confusion. In writing, there's also no exception. Maths is meant to be universal. The last thing we want is confuse the kids in basic concepts.

[cooky560 Veteran]

I just tried this in open office.org math and got "Error 501 :D"

[sc302 Veteran]

Solve 48?2(9+3)

post answers and why :p

48?2(9+3)=bbq ribs

because they are that awesome that even in math every equation can result in bbq ribs

[LaP]

well, that settles it. lord vader has spoken.

Nope it doesn't as the equations are not written the same way. 9*(2+3) will never be considered as juxtaposition. 9(2+3) might be.

[Passionate]

72

[neufuse Veteran]

P-E-M-D-A-S that's all I have to say

[LaP]

This thread makes me sad.

There IS NO ALTERNATE INTERPRETATION or "how you interpret it". It's just right or wrong. Why the hell are we arguing something learned in elementary school?

It is written in a somewhat confusing manner, but that doesn't mean you can interpret it otherwise. It's just wrong, and just because you're confused, doesn't make it right.

The answer is 288. Plain and simple as everyone has explained it over and over again. It is NOT 2.

Then explain to me why in my engineering books 2x is not the same as 2 * x ?

At university i've always did 2(something) first and always got the right answer.

[neufuse Veteran]

do we need to teach people order of operators again?

Parenthesis first

Exponents second

Multiplication third

Division fourth

Addition fifth

Subtraction sixth

48?2(9+3) turns into (48 / 2) * (9 + 3) which means do it in this order

(48 / 2) = 24

(9 + 3) = 12

24 * 12 = 288

you have to remember to "segment" operations off so when you do that it turns into this

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

then

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

then

( (24) * (12))

[Passionate]

ohh god .// i followed same rule .. but i did a wrong question . what is wrote is 48+2(9+3) .. **** .. i got it .. 288 is amswer

[neufuse Veteran]

Then explain to me why in my engineering books 2x is not the same as 2 * x ?

At university i've always did 2(something) first and always got the right answer.

you should always expand the equation out first before any calculations or you can get the wrong answer

[zeta_immersion]

you are all wrong, i always get e^x, not sure what i am doing wrong

[neufuse Veteran]

you are all wrong, i always get e^x, not sure what i am doing wrong

always a joker in the crowd

[LaP]

you should always expand the equation out first before any calculations or you can get the wrong answer

From my own exp in engineering math (electrical engineering degree) 2x or 2() will be considered as juxtaposition and be done first.

[zeta_immersion]

always a joker in the crowd

there are a few people, including me and you giving thorough explanation of what is involved here, just got bored seeing this thread still going on

[neufuse Veteran]

From my own exp in engineering math (electrical engineering degree) 2x or 2() will be considered as juxtaposition and be done first.

we've always been taught to do it the way I did it, even in engineering fields... because the 2 is part of the division statement so you can't move it... are you going to take the denominator of the division statement and multiply it first? no... it in itself is part of a number which is represented by 48 over 2 which is a number represented as a fraction... then that fraction can be multiples.... if you want to multiply the 2 first you have to have it encased in parenthesis first with the other part of the equation like this

48?(2(9+3))

[matts5280]

M$ Math answer.

[yakumo]

do we need to teach people order of operators again?

Parenthesis first

Exponents second

Multiplication third

Division fourth

Addition fifth

Subtraction sixth

except as multiple people have pointed out through this thread, and any search will show you, that is incorrect

PEDMAS

Parenthsis

Exponents

Multiplication AND Division

Addition AND Subtraction

similarly

BODMAS

Brackets

Orders

Multiplication AND Division

Addition AND Subtraction

Multiplication does not take precedence over division

Addition does not take precedence over subtraction

[giantpotato]

The problem is you wrote 48 * 1/2 * (9+3). But you cannot do the division before the "of" operator. Again you are showing you don't know the difference between multiplication and "of". The problem can be solved like this:

48 / 2(9+3)

= 48 / 2 of (9+3)

= 48 / 2 of 12

= 48 / 24 ; because of has a higher precedence than division

= 2

if the problem was 48 / 2 * (9+3), then the solution would have been:

48 / 2 * (9+3)

= 48 / 2 * 12

= 24 * 12

= 288

What are children being taught nowadays :huh:

"of" operator?????

WHAT THE HELL IS AN "OF" OPERATOR :unsure: