48÷2(9+3)=?

Math Guy #288 wrote:

And I am a professor of mathematics and I say the answer is 2 and that you are wrong. In regards to your math degree, you should ask for a refund.

If you were really a professor, you would know that schools do not give refunds.

LOL at you damn dummies that can't do basic 11th grade math. Anyone with half a damn brain knows it's 2.

NObama_Owns_You wrote:

LOL at you damn dummies that can't do basic 11th grade math. Anyone with half a damn brain knows it's 2.

Very true. If you have half a brain you know it's 2.

Speaking of trolls ...

NObama_Owns_You wrote:

LOL at you damn dummies that can't do basic 11th grade math. Anyone with half a damn brain knows it's 2.

The fact that it took you until 11th grade to get to algebra should probably disqualify you from participating in this conversation.

Don't you have some gay rights parade to march in Wendy?

Math Guy is 100% correct! I took Algebra twice and no I didn't fail it, I just felt like it.

2(9+3) is a group. The 2(X) is connected by distribution. 2(9) + 2(3). THe 2 is grouped with the parenthesis.

The answer is 2 if you think other wise, you need to just quit life.

This goes way beyond Asians kicking our asses in math. If half the people cannot agree on a topic which is basically undebatable, and are unswayed by contradictory facts, and logic and established conventions, I'm worried more because eventually everyone becomes voters, decision makers, and other positions of power. Who else here hasn't lived a life of hell because of decisions made by superiors who basically have no clue? If facts and logic and reason are subject to popular vote, it's no wonder that people think Evolution and Intelligent Design are part of the same debate, that America invaded Iraq, on as little basis as they did, and Sarah Palin is considered a serious threat to actually winning a presidential election.

malmo wrote:

I have no idea how this thread got to be this long, but it is surely proof why Asia is kicking our asses in math and is evidence that Letsrun has many law school graduates.

There is no ambiguity except to those who have been trained to fabricate ambiguity in everything.

NObama_Owns_You wrote:

Don't you have some gay rights parade to march in Wendy?

Math Guy is 100% correct! I took Algebra twice and no I didn't fail it, I just felt like it.

2(9+3) is a group. The 2(X) is connected by distribution. 2(9) + 2(3). THe 2 is grouped with the parenthesis.

The answer is 2 if you think other wise, you need to just quit life.

2 is not grouped with parentheses any more than it is with the rest of the expression.

The only thing that can (but does not need to) be distributed is the 48÷2.

Again, type that expression into any CAS or graphing calculator and see what you get. It's really not that difficult.

Math Guy is the worst kind of arrogant fool. You are a proven troll who apparently failed Algebra. Quite a team you have there.

"G" has to stand for "Got Damn Dumb"

Loom at the equation this way you moron

           48                            

_____________

        2(9+3)

So solve it now Mr. Know it all. That's what I thought! Now shut up and go to you damn equal right parade.

NObama_Owns_You wrote:

"G" has to stand for "Got Damn Dumb"

Loom at the equation this way you moron

 

           48                            

_____________

        2(9+3)

So solve it now Mr. Know it all. That's what I thought! Now shut up and go to you damn equal right parade.

 

 

Gee is a name, not an initial. Apparently your reading skills are equal to your math skills.

I can evaluate your expression. It can not be "solved" as there is no unknown.

Unfortunately, you have written a different expression from the original. I have no idea why you want to work from right to left, but that is not how it has been done in Western Culture for the past few centuries.

I think I have to make this my last comment, since it seems like the "opinion poll" is more or less 50/50.For seem reason you (Math Guy #288) seem to think that "48÷2*(9+3)" is somehow different than "48÷2(9+3)".For me, they are exactly the same in every respect, except for one missing "multiplication" character. Let's call one expression using "explicit multiplication", and the other "implicit multiplication".You believe, and would have everyone believe, that "implicit multiplication" has a higher precedence, than "explicit multiplication". Please provide me some kind of authoritative reference for this.Not to let you off the hook -- I really want to see a reference to a rule or established convention, or some sort of authoritative guideline, that goes beyond your own anonymous opinion, or "mplatt"'s highly credentialed yet jovial anonymous New England math professor -- but here are my final thoughts:First, in the real world, such ambiguities never arise, because the right answer is defined by the real world situation, attempting to guess how much water it takes to fill a swimming pool, or how long it will take, rather than how some mathematician misrepresented it in a single line, infixed notation, in an e-mail. Real mathematicians have access to equation editors.I did a little google research and here I find that orders of precedence were "established at least as far back as the 1500s" (before any calculators or computers):http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops.htmIn my limited research, I couldn't find that any special treatment or change of priorities or precedences for "implied multiplication" versus "explicit multiplication" that was established by any sort of universal or de facto convention.I found this opinion relevant and indicative of all opinions. If you want to believe the answer is "2", you must put "2(9+3)" in the denominator, because of some strong yet implicit bonding. But here "http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops3.htm""purplemath" opines that:When the vertical fraction above is reformatted horizontally (say, for typing it into an e-mail or a forum posting), you must convert the (vertically) implicit grouping into an (horizontally) explicit grouping, or this grouping could be "lost" or at least misunderstood.Here, in our case, in the subject line, no explicit grouping exists, i.e. no parentheses or brackets were added to enforce and ensure the implicit grouping.Here I found that the one company of Texas Instruments was also of two minds, sometimes giving special priority to implicit multiplication, and sometimes not:http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/72166.htmlhttp://epsstore.ti.com/OA_HTML/csksxvm.jsp?nSetId=103110But TI said that did it as a matter of convenience for their users, not to have to enter extra parentheses, rather than some established or de facto convention by 16th century mathematicians.(This explains the amusing "juxtaposition" result of the TI-85 versus TI-86).So for me, the lack of consensus clearly demonstrates no convention exists that supports the priority of "implicit multiplication". In the face of a lack of consensus, and a lack of a rule, "implicit multiplication" should deserve no de facto special status or exemption.I will leave with these final two contradictory thoughts:1) Although Dr. Math also indicated a strong preference for explicit notation, and parentheses, he did concede that some felt implicit multiplication deserves special treatment:"The problem is that some calculators that allow multiplications to be implied as in the former case treat that as a higher precedence operation (as some algebra texts say)"http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/72166.html2) How would I evaluate "3x/2y"? I find myself jumping the fence and saying that "3x" and "2y" are tightly bounded by implicit multiplication, without being able to explain why 2(9+3) is not.So I will leave some of you with the benefit of the doubt that you were taught that "implicit multiplication" deserves special treatment, because the confusion existed in the authors of your algebra text book.

Math Guy #288 wrote:

You are wrong. The question is not written: 48÷2*(9+3)

It is clearly written: 48÷2(9+3)

You must multiply out the 2 first. Either 2x9+2x3 or 2x(12). Either way, the answer is 2.

I have never seen a thread with this much FAIL. It should be deleted NOW.

How is this for demonstrating some ambiguity?

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F2x%2C+x%3D%289%2B3%29

the ambiguously gay duo wrote:

How is this for demonstrating some ambiguity?

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F2x%2C+x%3D%289%2B3%29

And then there is this:

rekrunner wrote:

2) How would I evaluate "3x/2y"? I find myself jumping the fence and saying that "3x" and "2y" are tightly bounded by implicit multiplication, without being able to explain why 2(9+3) is not.

There is a convention that variables are treated differently from constants. 3x and 2y are treated as quantities rather than operations in this case.

webby wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

2) How would I evaluate "3x/2y"? I find myself jumping the fence and saying that "3x" and "2y" are tightly bounded by implicit multiplication, without being able to explain why 2(9+3) is not.

There is a convention that variables are treated differently from constants. 3x and 2y are treated as quantities rather than operations in this case.

No there isn't.

ur not a prof wrote:

Math Guy #288 wrote:

And I am a professor of mathematics and I say the answer is 2 and that you are wrong. In regards to your math degree, you should ask for a refund.

If you were really a professor, you would know that schools do not give refunds.

I never said they would, but you should ask as you got ripped off.

You entered two unambiguously different equations.

At a minimum, this thread demonstrates the need for having and clearly understanding a single, agreed upon, order of operations,

Note that wolframalpha has no problem with this:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F2%289%2B3%29

48/2x where x=12?