Solve 48

[darth_vader]

[primexx]

well, that settles it. lord vader has spoken.

[Jebadiah]

Strong words you have there. That means I have no mathematical background and need to learn some math? After winning numerous math contests in highschool and an engineering graduate you think I still need to learn some math?

You think juxtaposition is just a load of bs we use to troll this thread?

What you learned in school, the awards you won, and the juxtaposition techniques you applied are worthless and useless, if you can't apply it properly without making incorrect assumptions. There is a skill in making the right assumptions to get the right answers; clearly, your accomplishments have not taught you that, but have simply given you an ego boost.

As I said before, write the expression on a piece of paper without making random assumptions and solve it, and you will get to 288 every single time.

See the Microsoft Mathematics worksheet dath_vader posted 2 posts above this. That's how the expression in the thread title is written in fraction form. There is no ambiguity, other than the ones brought into the picture by your own incorrect assumptions.

[RodAsh]

I was taught the calculation sequence BODMAS. That is determine in the following order:

Brackets Of Division Multiplication Addition Subtraction

This is what I've followed, and it's always worked for me. Of course, it's too easy to express the calculation that requires solution in an ambiguous format, instead of deciding correctly what the problem really is.

[ArKeYa]

What you learned in school, the awards you won, and the juxtaposition you applied are worthless and useless, if you can't apply it properly without making incorrect assumptions. There is a skill in making the right assumptions to get the right answers; clearly, your accomplishments have not taught you that. As I said before, write the expression on a piece of paper without making random assumptions and solve it, and you will get to 288 every single time.

See the Microsoft Mathematics worksheet dath_vader posted 2 posts above this. That's how the expression is written in fraction form. There is no ambiguity, other than the ones brought into the picture by your incorrect assumptions.

This is kind of ironic. Because unlike you I can accept other people's answer and posit my own without insulting them, and telling them they're worthless and only your assumptions are correct.

There is ambiguity, hence this long thread. Those calculators and worksheets you mentioned doesn't matter much because they are written by people and with computing in mind. There is ambiguity and those calculators settled it using the algorithm the programmers put into them. Hell the pics of two calculators with different answers proved that. Machines doesn't think, people do.

There is currently no universal rule accepted in the math community with regards to juxtaposition. But trends are on the way to have all multiplication done before other operations to remove confusions.

[darth_vader]

These are the rules that I've learned in school (see post 245 by LaP).

Rule 1: First perform any calculations inside parentheses.

Rule 2: Next perform all multiplications and divisions, working from left to right.

Rule 3: Lastly, perform all additions and subtractions, working from left to right.

48/2*(9+3)=48/2*12=24*12=288.

To obtain the result "2", it should have been like this: 48/(2*(9+3))=48/(2*12)=48/24=2

Yes, those "calculators and worksheets" are done by people, but the rules are the same.

[Axel]

My initial thought was 2.

What answer do people get if you perform it differently?

48?2x

x=9+3

I would always treat 2x as if it were inside it's own parentheses so I would perform 2*(9+3) which is 24 and 48?24.

So I would interpret these both in the same way:

48?2(9+3)
48?(2(9+3))

And if the answer were to be 288 it would be:

(48?2)*(9+3)

...but I'm not a maths geek and most likely retarded so make of it what you will...

[darth_vader]

So I would interpret these both in the same way:

48?2(9+3)
48?(2(9+3))

Rule 1: First perform any calculations inside parentheses.

Rule 2: Next perform all multiplications and divisions, working from left to right.

48?2(9+3)=288

48?(2(9+3)) =2

I'm also not a math geek, I just folow the rules.

[Stetson]

These are the rules that I've learned in school (see post 245 by LaP).

Rule 1: First perform any calculations inside parentheses.

Rule 2: Next perform all multiplications and divisions, working from left to right.

Rule 3: Lastly, perform all additions and subtractions, working from left to right.

48/2*(9+3)=48/2*12=24*12=288.

You started with 48/2*(9+3), which isn't exactly what is in the original topic. The argument isn't about how you solve 48/2*(9+3), but whether you interpret the equation as it was written to be 48/2*(9+3) or 48/(2(9+3). If you notice both of those forms contain things that aren't visible in the original equation. ;)

[Argi]

You started with 48/2*(9+3), which isn't exactly what is in the original topic. The argument isn't about how you solve 48/2*(9+3), but whether you interpret the equation as it was written to be 48/2*(9+3) or 48/(2(9+3). If you notice both of those forms contain things that aren't visible in the original equation. ;)

But that's the point, the original question is ambiguous and more brackets need to be added to confirm the original intention. Beyond that, there's not much you can do.

Both forms of equations are correct in their own rights but it's just up to the writer to say which they wanted.

[chconline Veteran]

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.

[MSfanatic]

The answer is 2. Those who are saying 288 didn't learn basic arithmetic at elementary school. Anyone who knows BODMAS( Bracket, Of, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction) will get the result 2. Because 2(9+3) is not the same as 2 * (9 + 3).

2(9+3) reads 2 of (9+3), and "of" has a higher precedence than division according to BODMAS. Simple as that.

[srjallan]

The answer is 2. Those who are saying 288 didn't learn basic arithmetic at elementary school. Anyone who knows BODMAS( Bracket, Of, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction) will get the result 2. Because 2(9+3) is not the same as 2 * (9 + 3).

2(9+3) reads 2 of (9+3), and "of" has a higher precedence than division according to BODMAS. Simple as that.

+1

[Julius Caro]

The answer is 2. Those who are saying 288 didn't learn basic arithmetic at elementary school. Anyone who knows BODMAS( Bracket, Of, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction) will get the result 2. Because 2(9+3) is not the same as 2 * (9 + 3).

Bolded sentence makes me wonder who was the one that didnt learn the basics at elementary school.

[MSfanatic]

Bolded sentence makes me wonder who was the one that didnt learn the basics at elementary school.

The one who thinks "of" = "multiplication"

[rfirth]

The one who thinks "of" = "multiplication"

Yeah, I thought the O stood for Orders, not Of... you know, order as in exponents. Here in the States we learn PEMDAS (Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally :p )

[spy beef]

lolol it's BEDMAS: brackets, exponents, division, multiplication, addition, subtraction

division first then multiplication so answer is 288

[chconline Veteran]

The answer is 2. Those who are saying 288 didn't learn basic arithmetic at elementary school. Anyone who knows BODMAS( Bracket, Of, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction) will get the result 2. Because 2(9+3) is not the same as 2 * (9 + 3).

:laugh:

This.

2(9+3) reads 2 of (9+3), and "of" has a higher precedence than division according to BODMAS. Simple as that.

So what if I wrote:

48 * 1/2 * (9+3)

48 * 0.5 * 12

24 * 12

= 288

Oh wait...

I did division first on the same equation.

But I got a different answer than 2.

I JUST FOUND A MATH CONFLICT OMG!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah I'm not sure if you noticed, but division is just the inverse of multiplication. They have the same order, so you read left to right. PLEASE stop spreading your pseudomathematics around. It has been proved at least 3 dozen times on why it is not 2, it is absolutely preposterous and unbelievable on such a well educated forum that we need to argue on this topic of why it is not 2 and rather 288.

[Stetson]

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.

Whether it's right or wrong, going from 48?2(9+3) to 48/2*(9+3) is still an interpretation. You rant about how it has been proven and yet I haven't really seen it. Just people saying "My answer is X. Everyone who disagrees is an idiot who failed elementary school". To me there seem to be a roughly equal amount of these statements from both sides, and they don't seem to be helping anything.

The original equation is 48?2(9+3). It is not 48/2*(9+3), nor is it 48/(2(9+3)), it is 48?2(9+3). The first step that everyone seems to be taking by assumption is putting it into one of the above forms.

[nub]

Answer is 288

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

/thread

[chconline Veteran]

Whether it's right or wrong, going from 48?2(9+3) to 48/2*(9+3) is still an interpretation. You rant about how it has been proven and yet I haven't really seen it. Just people saying "My answer is X. Everyone who disagrees is an idiot who failed elementary school". To me there seem to be a roughly equal amount of these statements from both sides, and they don't seem to be helping anything.

The original equation is 48?2(9+3). It is not 48/2*(9+3), nor is it 48/(2(9+3)), it is 48?2(9+3). The first step that everyone seems to be taking by assumption is putting it into one of the above forms.

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)).

[ArKeYa]

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)).

OK I get it now, please tell me you are just trolling right? You have got to be. Else :laugh: .

[MSfanatic]

:laugh:

This.

So what if I wrote:

48 * 1/2 * (9+3)

48 * 0.5 * 12

24 * 12

= 288

Oh wait...

I did division first on the same equation.

But I got a different answer than 2.

I JUST FOUND A MATH CONFLICT OMG!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah I'm not sure if you noticed, but division is just the inverse of multiplication. They have the same order, so you read left to right. PLEASE stop spreading your pseudomathematics around. It has been proved at least 3 dozen times on why it is not 2, it is absolutely preposterous and unbelievable on such a well educated forum that we need to argue on this topic of why it is not 2 and rather 288.

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

[Jebadiah]

This is kind of ironic. Because unlike you I can accept other people's answer and posit my own without insulting them, and telling them they're worthless and only your assumptions are correct.

Umm I already gave my answer on Page 3 or 4, and gave more than enough justification to make any person, with basic knowledge, understand the problem and solution. Look it up before you start judging me and babbling like a moron.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/989012-solve-48%c3%b7293/page__view__findpost__p__593873958

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/989012-solve-48%c3%b7293/page__view__findpost__p__593873980

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/989012-solve-48%c3%b7293/page__view__findpost__p__593874000

There is ambiguity, hence this long thread. Those calculators and worksheets you mentioned doesn't matter much because they are written by people and with computing in mind. There is ambiguity and those calculators settled it using the algorithm the programmers put into them. Hell the pics of two calculators with different answers proved that. Machines doesn't think, people do.

Again, ambiguity is caused by your stupid assumptions [in this case]. There is ZERO ambiguity in this expression. The reason this is a long thread is obviously because of all those people who were lazy to even attempt to write the problem on a piece of paper in fraction form without making incorrect assumptions.

I cannot begin to fathom how many careers TI-85 has destroyed.

There is currently no universal rule accepted in the math community with regards to juxtaposition. But trends are on the way to have all multiplication done before other operations to remove confusions.

Stop applying rules for the heck of it. That's not how Math works. That is another assumption you made on your own. Rules have a basic assumption behind them. If you don't understand what that is, you cannot apply it correctly. Those rules you talk about exist for people who learn Math by rote. (I call them parrots.) Parrots are useless because don't *understand*.

[chconline Veteran]

OK I get it now, please tell me you are just trolling right? You have got to be. Else :laugh: .

Nope, everything I have written is mathematically correct. If you can prove otherwise, then your so-called "proof" is invalid.

Just plug my equations into any calculator and it will evaluate to the same result. Including the original one. Because, for one thing, the computer knows proper order of operations, and I actually know how to do basic math, which you have clearly failed.

http://www.google.com/search?q=48*%289%2B3%29%2F2&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://www.google.com/search?q=48*0.5*%289%2B3%29&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://www.google.com/search?q=48%2F2*1*%289%2B3%29&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Yes... I can prove it.

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

There is no "of" operator. I don't know where you invented that from. 2*(9+3) is the same thing as 2(9+3). Bracket precedence only applies to things inside the bracket. Anything outside just implies multiplication.

2*(9+3) = 2(9+3)

Distributive property applies, but you must follow the order of operations and you incorrectly assumed (9+3) is part of the denominator, as others have explained dozens of times. Your so-called "of" (Multiplication) is done by:

48/2(9+3)

= 24(9+3)

= 24*9 + 24*3

= 216 + 72

= 288

Is the same thing as

48/2(9+3)

48/2(12)

Which is the same thing as writing:

48/2*12

So continuing from there

24*12

OR

576/2

= 288

The other way of reading is

48/2(9+3)

Since we know multiplication is the inverse of division, and vice versa, then you can also write the division term as a multiplication:

48 * 1/2 * (9+3)

which is the same thing as writing

48 * (1/2) * (9+3)

(It is ok to put brackets around things without their adjacent multiplication terms, because it doesn't change anything, you can prove this mathematically as well. 48 * 1/2 is the same as 48*0.5 or 48/2. Your so called "of" operator includes adjacent multiplicative terms which is clearly not defined in the original equation as part of the denominator.)

or

48 * 0.5 * (9+3)

It is no different as saying

48*0.5*12

OR

(48)(0.5)(12)

Which also magically gives you 288.

Therefore if you read from left to right, then 48 / 2 * (9+3) = 288 is also factually correct.

You see, math is self consistent. If you do it you way then math is inconsistent, because your way is wrong. All the rules apply and no matter how you apply it, if you are applying it correctly, you will still end up with 288. Funny how things work out, right?

I think we already proved this several dozen times in this thread already.

I'm just going to leave this thread before I start banging my head on the table too many times.

By the way, let's join the flat earth society, yeah?