48÷2(9+3)

[murd0c]

This thread lets me know why I love the internet so much

[bloodmack]

OP gave a question that hasn't been finished yet, this could be solved in more than 1 way and we aren't told what we are to use. IF we used just BEDMAS it would be 288
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12) Brackets Solved
24(12) Division and Multiplication solved from left to right
288 my answer using BEDMAS
We were TAUGHT, well I was, that if an equation is followed by a bracket with a number or another equation in it we should multiply it after solving the bracketed equation first.
If we used BEDMAS for 48/(2(9+3)) we would get:
48/(2(12))
48/24
= 2

If I am incorrect my bad, im going off memory from 4 years ago lol.

[TOS'd]

The answer is 42, guys. jeez...

[optiblue]

Brackets first always!
Posted via RS Mobile

[Mining]

BEDMAS?

I got 288.

Do thing inside brackets. Do division 48/2. so your left with 24*12
am i missing something here

Originally Posted by T.T

it's ambiguous because when someone asks you to interpret 1/2x you don't know whether they mean (1/2)x or 1/(2x). 9 times out of 10 they mean 1/(2x) because the 2 and the x are implied to be together (kinda like the 2(9+3) here) and they are either lazy (bastards!) or don't know how to use brackets to avoid confusion.

I'm not saying interpreting it as 1/(2x) is 'correct'. The first thing I would do is get them to clarify if they mean

(1/2)x or
1/(2x)

that's the proper way to type out the equation to avoid confusion.

Its implied and people got lazy? since when ...
if they really wanted it to be 48/(2(9+3)) then they would have put brackets since they put brackets on the (9+3). In this case, they didn't so its multiplication not brackets.

(i can see this post being failed in the near future by those who don't agree with me, I FORESEE IT)

[Presto]

Originally Posted by taylor192

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. Yet until you do, your understanding is actually an assumption.

That clears things up a bit, and I can understand your answer, but i doubt that a lot of people that got "2" came to the solution in the same way. While a number next to the parentheses is considered ambiguous to programming languages, with no hard math rule, it looks that the majority of folks still assumed multiplication, which was probably taught in school.
EDIT:
Incidentally, Google will recognize numbers next to parentheses, and clarifies/corrects the equation:
48÷2(9+3) = (48 / 2) * (9 + 3) = 288

[SaviorSelf_666]

48/2(9+3)
48/18+6
48/24
=2

That's how my 17 year old cousin solved it.........weird

[LUUUUUUUU]

48/2(9+3) =
48/18+6 =
2.6+6 =

= 8.6

[Energy]

PEMDAS. Parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction. its 2...

[Purely]

The question is ambiguous. There was this exact question over the BB forum with over 70+ pages..

[Mining]

Originally Posted by Energy

PEMDAS. Parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction. its 288...

If you followed PEMDAS

you stated it was multiplication first and then division. and you would get 2 wouldn't you haha

I follow BEDMAS but i heard D and M can be interchangeable so I will no longer come back to this thread

[woob]

Originally Posted by Asmodeus

i heard D and M can be interchangeable

Serious? Teacher never told you that whether you follow PEMDAS or BEDMAS it's D and M in the order that they appear?

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

don't want to thread jack, but can someone please confirm my math

1/0 =

?

"Black holes are where God divided by zero."

My Algebra 11 teacher had a favorite joke, "In Germany, you can't divide by nine!" - okay, it's an audible joke, only really works when said out loud, because of course, German for "no" is "nein", which of course, is pronounced like "nine". Mathematically, "no" doesn't work, but then, that's not the joke.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by taylor192

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.

Yeah, except Mythbusters settled the plane-on-a-conveyor-belt issue already.

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.

Sounds like a good prof - critical thinking is one of the greatest skills anyone can learn.

[buddy]

will this solve our problem?

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Yeah, except Mythbusters settled the plane-on-a-conveyor-belt issue already.

Depends, a lot of people disagree with how mythbusters tackled it.

The way the question is worded, the conveyor belt is moving and the plane is applying enough force to maintain its relative position in space. The question is also worded that the conveyor belt will change speed to keep the plane in that relative position if the plane tries to change speed.

Thus its a word problem, cause there's no way to apply it in real life. If the plane moves even a miniscule amount from its relative position, the conveyor belt has to change speed to compensate. If the plane doesn't return to its relative position, the conveyor keeps changing speed - then we get into a loop where the speed of the conveyor goes to infinity in zero time - and there's no conveyor in the world capable of doing this.

Thus why there are entire websites dedicated to the physical limitations of how fast the conveyor could accelerate vs the plane accelerate vs the wheels burning off the plane.

Its a really fun debate - yet it all comes down to if you assume its a physics problem, or a word problem. I assume word problem, as the physics are far too complicated and require way too many assumptions.

[Soundy]

Actually, the physics are dead easy, and Mythbusters addressed that when they summarized it: the plane is driven by the propeller, working against the air; force under the wheels is virtually irrelevant (calculable and measurable, yes, due to friction within the wheel bearings... but ultimately, not a factor).

The argument works for a car on a conveyor belt, because the forward motion is a direct cause of the tires' contact with whatever surface they're on.

A more valid argument for the plane would be whether a plane could stay stationary and still get airborn in a strong enough headwind - like the car, you're now working opposite the movement of what your engine is thrusting against.

[MRSky88]

http://img571.imageshack.us/i/stupidmathquestion.jpg/

???

[k3mps]

48 / 2(9+3) = 288

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

im assuming we were all taught to multiply numbers into brackets. but we forgot that there are no brackets around 2(9+3), so we do it in the order it's shown as 48 / 2 x (9+3)

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

bed motherf'in mas
WHY HARD?

[LUUUUUUUU]

YouTube

[buddy]

^ I lol'd for the whole minute and 4 second ...

[jaguar604]

successful troll op is successful

[Grandmaster TSE]

trolls be trollin

[KingDeeCee]

Wow....when did revscene become Bodybuilding.com

Is this misc brah?