48/2(9+3)

I saw this s'hit on GAF the other day.

 Spoiler

Got 288 on my own.

Instead of making the answer (look) ambigous or make people question what you're really trying to convey, why not make it intuitive? Like this:



In common usage, division and multiplication takes an atomic value in front of it and an atomic value afterwards. An atomic value is something indivisible, or, if you want to, the "shortest"/easiest way to express a number. So 2 is an atom, and 9 + 3 is not an atom. As you guys probably have learned today, people may "debate" whether 4x is an atom or not, and whether 2(9 + 3) or 2(12) is an atom. Common usage is: If it can't be shortened more, it is an atom, otherwise it isn't.

Using common usage, the answer is 288. Using common sense, don't write mathematical expression which may be ambigous.

Noah

/Endthread

It's not a math trick it's just using sloppy notation. with "48/2" on it's own 2 is a denominator. how 48/2x is determined depends entirely on something that a backslash doesn't express. In short, 48/2(9+3) is just not well expressed due to the mode of expression. and infection, this got stupid when you expressed it on a calculator that does one function at a time and therefore has no relevance to anything in relation to order of operations. the fact you find it relevant just shows that understand the process but not the logic.

oh and for anyone who thinks wolfram proves you right, let me point out the first thing it does. Puts the expression in proper notation.



by all means, check the url of that image. then click the nice blue links to the page by loose or infection.

machine calculators will always do it that way as they are programmed to work from left to right. They don't work on logic, but programming. It would be extremely annoying if you had to specify things like that to calculators for them to function.

Here's the kicker. put a parenthesis around the x for extra credit. If you think that really proves something think about f(x) = 9+3.

it's a number bigger than 0.
do i win?

The answer I first thought of was 288 (actually an estimation around 280, since i used mental math).
It can also be 2.
There are two right answers because when you guys write it like this: 48/2*(9+3) You're changing it from it's original form and correcting it to "work". It works as 48/2*(9+3) and 48/(2(9+3)) because it was written sloppily. It's the same as saying 48/2x where x=(9+3). In most cases, one would assume x is attached to 2, but the moment parenthesis are involved it becomes ambiguous. To me, it's easy get 2 first because when I see '/' I see a fraction, not a divided by sign. And since (9+3) seems attached to 2, i take that as whole that is under 48.
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
48/24
2

tl;dr Basically what Noah said.

The answer you get first probably depends on how and by who you were taught math. (I learned PEMDAS, not BEDMAS)

I don't get you people saying there's a damn difference between PEMDAS and BEDMAS.

If you actually remember your acronyms, MD/AS and DM/AS, respectively, are put together and solved left-to-right.

Parentheses	Brackets
Exponents	Exponents
Multiplication/Division	Division/Multiplication
Addition/Subtraction	Addition/Subtraction

That's why these two equations are the same:
48 / 2 * 3
48 * 3 / 2

288 + 2 = 290

Everyone is happy.

48 / 2 * 3
48 * 3 / 2

look how ambiguous those aren't.

That's why these two equations are the same:
48 / 2 * 3
48 * 3 / 2

I hate to ruin your point making, but those are the same due to multiplicative and division properties if anything. Not because of how its listed. It's the same as saying 1+0 = 1 or 0+1=1.

I don't get you people saying there's a damn difference between PEMDAS and BEDMAS.

If you actually remember your acronyms, MD/AS and DM/AS, respectively, are put together and solved left-to-right.

Parentheses	Brackets
Exponents	Exponents
Multiplication/Division	Division/Multiplication
Addition/Subtraction	Addition/Subtraction

[COLOR="green"]The difference is PEMDAS says that Multiplication comes before Division in case of a tie. BEDMAS says the other way around.

It all depends on how your brain actually interprets the fraction, since fractions usually don't get written sideways.[/COLOR]

I see a man getting cut in half while taking a dump, where are you guys getting these numbers from

[COLOR="green"]The difference is PEMDAS says that Multiplication comes before Division in case of a tie. BEDMAS says the other way around.

It all depends on how your brain actually interprets the fraction, since fractions usually don't get written sideways.[/COLOR]

Multiplication and division have the same precedence; you go in order from left to right.

Multiplication and division have the same precedence; you go in order from left to right.

and with the use of a backslash, the left and right becomes ambiguous. You can't tell where a denominator ends, using no symbols just makes it harder.

48/2(9+3)=
48/2(9) + 2(3)=
48/18 + 6=
2 12/18 + 6=
2 2/3 + 6=
8.666...

DO I WIN!?

 Spoiler

288.

48/2(9+3)=
48/2(9) + 2(3)=
48/18 + 6=
2 12/18 + 6=
2 2/3 + 6=
8.666...

DO I WIN!?

 Spoiler

288.

You sir, win 10 interents.

oj, who was the asshat...
http://www.basilmarket.com/forum/1988062...ments_list

oj, who was the asshat...
http://www.basilmarket.com/forum/1988062...ments_list

Not me. However the replies on there are simply idiotic, basing it off the fact that google, wolfram alpha, and their calculators are showing 288. The correct thing to say is that the question is too vague to be determined if (9+3) is on the denominator or the numerator. I feel bad for everyone in that thread trying to show some knowledge.

Sorry guys, it's two because my abacus said so.
abacuses>calculators, so I'm right.
/endtread

oj, who was the asshat...
http://www.basilmarket.com/forum/1988062...ments_list

YES THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY OTHER SOURCE OTHER THAN BASILMARKET

288


/latetothread



After reading through the thread, I learned it the way Infection learned it, not the way you guys are trying to explain it. I've always learned to do it from top to bottom, left to right -- that's even how the Chinese and Japanese write Kanji. lol

There's nothing at all that would make me assume the 2 is to be multiplied to the 12 before the 48 even being involved, ESPCIALLY if you see it as a fraction.

48 over 2 -- Find a common demoninator : 2
24 over 1 -- 24 whole numbers.
9 + 3 -- 12
24 * 12 -- 288


The only other way would be if the (9+3) were with the 2 under the bar, making that part of the fraction as well. 48 over 24. However, with the way it is written in the thread title, the only way to really solve it is use the first way, since there's no way to show whether or not the (9+3) is under the bar.