I can understand the need for clarification once you start having to solve for 'x', but you kinda lost me on the ambiguity of this thread's particular equation. Though poorly written, it's written in a way that is solvable with conventional means. There's not really any other way to approach it differently, if a person knows the rules.

rofl at all these debates. Those who have done enough math will naturally think it's 48/2(9+3) and get 2. Those who got numbers other than 2, no amount of explanations will help you.

LOL at 68 votes for 2, and how Presto is just repeating the same thing over and over.

^ we can't fail Mod anyway ...

http://www.revscene.net/forums/attac...1&d=1302631199

everyone here at work including myself say the answer is 288

Fuck your calculators.
http://i56.tinypic.com/16h6ja8.png
Solve it like a child in the 80s. Why don't one of you 71 savants walk me through how you came to the answer of 2?

Wow with the way Presto is going on about this you'd think we're pissing on his Doctorate of Mathematics paper.

THIS THREAD IS EPIC.

Time to ask a bunch of my staff what they get.

Got some Accutaries here. LOL this should be epic.

48÷2(9+3)

is the same as:

48 ÷ 2 x (9+3)

So:

48 ÷ 2 x 12

24 x 12

288

Yeah?

48÷2(9+3) = 42

/thread

The answer is right, but what is the question?

:fullofwin:

it was posted many times on page one and two. Like i said if you break it down into numerator and denominator you can see why the answer is two.

I wish we could fail mods, especially ones on a power trip. Thankfully, there's at least one member on here that gets it:

Its funny, even with this, some people don't get it:

I'll try and break it down into more simple terms for you:

Do you know what a unary operation is? Its an operation with only 1 operand. ie: -3

So what's the outcome of this?
-3^2

it could be:
-(3^2) = -9
(-3)^2 = 9

Cause BEDMAS does not apply to unary operators.

Notice how this equation is missing an operand between the "2" and the "(". We can assume this is an unary operand, in which case it could be expanded to either:
48 / [2 * (9+3)] = 2
48 / (2) * (9+3) = 288

Usually unary operands get evaluated first, anyone who develops software knows this cause "++" is a unary operand. Thus why some calculators are returning the answer as 2.

There's your math lesson for the day.

^^^

Why assume anything? As soon as you have to throw in shit like unary to make it work, then you've already missed the point. Solve it like it's presented. Don't assume anything other than what is there. With the information that's presented (the equation), it's solvable by anyone with a grade school education.

Quoted, to immortalize your stupidity... :fullofwin:

... you just Timpo'd ... you just don't get it.

SpuGen = laughing his ass off right now

You cannot solve it as presented. You are assuming "2(" expands to "2 * (" since there is no rule for a bracket being an operator.

I understand where you're coming from, cause yes it is solvable by anyone with JUST a grade school education of BEDMAS. I have 4 years of university math, in particular physics and electronics math that is only solvable with assumptions. Thus my eye is more critical than the simple mind of a grade schooler who is going to assume "2(" expands to "2 * (".

As I pointed out, even my development environment is smart enough to warn me the equation is ambiguous - which is a far cry from grade school math.

Presto, no hard feelings. This is just the "plane on a conveyor belt" question all over again. We can debate this till the end of time - it all comes down to what assumptions you make.

My 4th year electronics prof never cared if we got the same answer as he did, he cared that we could justify our assumptions getting to our answer.

No problem. You mention that there is no rule for bracket being an operator. I've always understood that no operator between the number and bracket means multiplication. Is that where the ambiguity comes from? Due to language of the software?

I always assumed that meant multiplication.
Posted via RS Mobile

:)

That's exactly where the ambiguity comes from. We can solve the ambiguity by figuring out where your understanding comes from. I couldn't find a hard rule about a bracket being a multiply operator - yet if you can, then no more ambiguity. :thumbsup: Yet until you do, your understanding is actually an assumption. :p

math sux