u solve what's INSIDE the () first.

48/2(12) = 48/2*12

the 2 is NOT inside the ()


then 48/2*12 is all mults and divisions. u evaluate left to right.
48 divide by 2 times 12.

= FRIGGING 288!

WOW 2(9+3) is a single term by defintion of the Distributive property...... read it

a(b+c) = ab+ac

ex 5(4+2)
(20+10) or
= 30
or
5(4+2)
5(6)
=30

wrong way

5(4+2)
5*4+2
=22

Isn't Wolfram using them like you are? I never think to use brackets and then, being clerically challenged to begin with, get all screwed up with the openings and closings.

I posted both of the below earlier because I used Wolf to verify my work. Here they are again for both equations; do 62% here think Wolf is giving the wrong answer to both equations, i.e., is Wolf a faulty calculator?

And, as far as the answer differing depending on how one uses the equation, is there really more than one 'correct' way? If so, that would really shake my faith in math.

But then, I once took a course in projective geometry which is non-Euclidian and wherein parallel lines DO cross. Oy vey. :rolleyes:

Anyway, unless Wolf is faulty, these are the right answers:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1302643387.jpg


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1302643406.jpg

damn liberal

but after you do what is in the '( )' then you establish the numerator and the denominator - that means you must do the multiplication first. Division is last.

distributive property doesn't let u distribute only part of a common factor over the elements.

doing proper distributive, would be
48/2(9+3) = 48/2*9 + 48/2*3


apply distributive rule,
a/b(c+d) = a/b*c + a/b*d

multiplication and division have the SAME priority. you do NOT do multiplication first then division. you apply the operators left to right!!!!!

i'm tired of teaching 4th grade arithmetic .

48/2(9+3) - Google Search

if u don't believe it, too bad.

Damn. I was sure it was 2. Then I read the next post and that made sense. 288. Then i read the next post. Whew, Chris you are not crazy it is 2. Then I read the next post, crap 288 does make sense. Then the ne............

I'm afraid to even open this anymore

Next you are going to prove that 2 is a rational number.

I'm out!

Dude! You're killin' me here. Look how these two things are written.


They are written exactly the same, but you're arguing that one is solved one way and the other is solved the other way.

Wolframalpha is doing the problem two different ways.

If you change it to x 1/2, it changes the result

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1302649618.jpg

Bzzzt! Thanks for playing. Read below.

Ding, ding, ding!!!

Thank you, I was about to post that myself.

Part of the problem taken out of context can be dangerous.

You could rewrite the portion of the equation in question as

(48/2)(9+3) which gives 9x24+3x24 which is 12x24 which is 288

same goes for the problem that you suggested.

(16/2)(8-3(4-2))+1
8(8-3(2))+1
8(8-6)+1
8(2)+1
17

I'm curious how many still think the answer is 2?


KT

If 288 and 17 are wrong, please share with us the respectable reference source which supports your approach!

Excel spreadsheet and the C programming reference I mentioned support the answers being 288 and 17 respectively.

However if these answers are wrong, I'll gladly be the first to admit my error, and graciously thank anyone who shares a reference source which says it is otherwise!

I do......

Hahahahahahah

Kudos to you for being willing to admit it

Me

"Objectiveness?" Is that really a word? It's "objectivity." Sheesh. And don't give me the old argument about "objectiveness" vs "objectivity" being subjective.