48÷2(9+3) = ???

[briCK]

if you apply BODMAS

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

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

[briCK]

Also BODMAS and PEMDAS or fundamentaly "opposite as it were

you will notice that there is a problem with what to do first Divide the Multiply as in PEMDAS
or Divide before Multiply as in BODMAS.


Do you know how intergration and calculas results can have two "fundamentally corect" answers based solely on this?

[briCK]

I like this explanation.





It's not technically ambiguous. If it shows up on a test there's only one right answer. But writing it as "48 ÷ 2(9+3) = " (which is the most sensible form to write it in) or 48 / 2(9+3) would eliminate 90% of most people's confusion.

[DAMOLAAA]

u have to get rid of the Bracket before dividing 48 by 2

[briCK]

u have to get rid of the Bracket before dividing 48 by 2

there in lies the problem.

the First Bracket is an Expression the Second Bracket is multiplication. So you need to divide before you multiply.

the equation is badly written.


I looked at it differently and did not use BODMAS just Logic(1's and 0's)

logic is always reduce problem to a single based expression have a common denominator as it were

put brackets around the whole thing and add silent operators


((48÷2)*(9+3))

bracket cancel = (48÷2)*(9+3)
24 x 12 = 288.

Engineering mathematics I belive works like this.

[DAMOLAAA]

48/(2*9+2*3)=48/24=2

[briCK]

i guess that looks right too.

 

but thats a**uming that the distributive property of multiplication states that the 2(9+3) is an entire statement and CANNOT be broken up.

[DAMOLAAA]

 

[briCK]

Its not worth it but if you have time to waste
i suggest checking this link.


http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/48%C3%B7293

[briCK]

Pitty this site has pron heads and haters....but it would be intresting to see what people think of people in cirtain fields..

check this...





Engineer Wrote:
There is NOTHING wrong with the way this question was phrased. This would've made a nice SAT or GMAT problem haha. Even I got it wrong on the first try (im an engineer) and I thought it was 2....then i looked back and was like waiiiit a second.


Stupid number cruncher wrote:
OH you're an engineer? Holy shit, then you MUST be the ultimate authority because everyone knows that engineers have the deepest understanding of mathematics (granted this is extremely simple shit, but there's a subtlety most people here seem to be missing). Dude reality check, engineers are complete dumba**es at math because they learn it completely wrong their entire academic lives. And the reason is that they never need to understand it properly, just use it.
Nobody was insisting that the answer is 2. The discussion was around whether the question is poorly written or not, and it absolutely is. I've explained it at length in my earlier posts and refuse to do it again.


WRONG....getting angry about shit won't make it right...

i wish a practical life or need progam was invented where the wrong answer would electrocute you to death!

half the people in the world would go bye bye!

[RearrangedReality]

man to hell with thread.

so the explanation is that from the way it is written, the answer is 2. if it was not written poorly then the answer would be 288? what kind of dumb shit are these nerds discussing?

[briCK]

man to hell with thread.

so the explanation is that from the way it is written, the answer is 2. if it was not written poorly then the answer would be 288? what kind of dumb shit are these nerds discussing?

Mmmmmh let's make this intresting for u RR.

48weaves div by 2(9 brown weaves + 3 hazel weaves) eqauls how many happy girls?

No beef!

That's too many weaves for two girls!

[daliq]

just to add to the argument
these are complex expressions/arguments, hehe. I'd like to add that engineering calculators mostly use reverse polish notation (RPN) where every operator follows all of its operands.

expr:  { 48÷2(9+3) = x }

48 2 / -> 24
9 3 + -> 12
*       ->  288

or

48  2  9  3  +  *  /  -> 2

so probably that would reduce the need for parentheses and ambiguity

[General Ratzinger van Stilzkin]

man to hell with thread.

so the explanation is that from the way it is written, the answer is 2. if it was not written poorly then the answer would be 288? what kind of dumb shit are these nerds discussing?

Mmmmmh let's make this intresting for u RR.

48weaves div by 2(9 brown weaves + 3 hazel weaves) eqauls how many happy girls?

No beef!

That's too many weaves for two girls!

hahahahahaha!

[RearrangedReality]

man to hell with thread.

so the explanation is that from the way it is written, the answer is 2. if it was not written poorly then the answer would be 288? what kind of dumb shit are these nerds discussing?

Mmmmmh let's make this intresting for u RR.

48weaves div by 2(9 brown weaves + 3 hazel weaves) eqauls how many happy girls?

No beef!

That's too many weaves for two girls!

LOL!