48÷2(9+3) = ????

[sammyg2]

[AirKuhl]

Originally Posted by RWebb

it touches at infinity

but some infinities are bigger than others...

In order for it to touch, you would have to be able to define the specific value where it touches. In doing so, that would imply that infinity is a real number. But any math geek can tell you that infinity is not a number, it is a just a symbol that represents an unbounded limit.

[AirKuhl]

Originally Posted by krystar

heh how about this
if we assumed 0.9(infinite) does equal 1 and 0.9(a gajillion) does NOT equal 1

does 0.9(infinity-1 digits) = 1? questionable
does 0.9(infinity-gajillion digits) != 1? questionable

does 0.9(infinity-infinity digits) != 1? ........what? heheh

Lol!

Let me just be honest here, I like math because chicks dig it.

[AirKuhl]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

]

He could have saved time by counting to 2*(infinity).

[sammyg2]

Q: What’s the difference between a PhD in Mathematics and a large pizza?
A: The pizza can feed a family of four.

Q: How do you pick-up chicks in a Calculus II class?
A:




A mathematician walks into a bar
Filed under: Upper-division jokes, Walks into a bar — Travis @
A mathematican walks into a bar accompanied by a dog and a cow. The bartender says, “Hey, no animals are allowed in here.”

The mathematician replies, “These are very special animals.”

“How so?”

“They’re knot theorists.”

The bartender raises his eyebrows and says, “I’ve met a number of knot theorists who I thought were animals, but never an animal that was a knot theorist.”

“Well, I’ll prove it to you. Ask them them anything you like.”

So the bartender asks the dog, “Name a knot invariant.”

“Arf! Arf!” barks the dog.

The bartender scowls and turns to the cow asking, “Name a topological invariant.”

“Mu! Mu!” says the cow.

At this point the bartender turns to the mathematican and says, “Very funny.” With that, he throws the three out of the bar.

Outside, sitting on the curb, the dog turns to the mathematican and asks, “Do you think I should have said the Jones polynomial instead?”

[sammyg2]

Two mathematicians walk into a bar


The first one says to the second that the average person knows very little about basic mathematics. The second one disagrees, and claims that most people can cope with a reasonable amount of math.

The second mathematician goes off to the washroom, and in his absence the first calls over the waitress.

He tells her that in a few minutes, after his friend has returned, he will call her over and ask her a question. All she has to do is answer “‘a‘ squared plus ‘b‘ squared.”

She repeats: “A square plus a bee square?”

He repeats “a squared plus b squared.”

“Ay squared plus bee squared?”

“Yes, that’s right”, he says.

So she agrees, and goes off mumbling to herself, “Ay squared plus bee squared… Ay squared plus bee squared… Ay squared plus bee squared…”

The second guy returns and the first proposes a bet to prove his point, that most people do know something about basic math. He says he will ask the blonde waitress a simple algebra question, and the second happily agrees.

The first man calls over the waitress and asks “What is (a+b)2?”

The waitress says “Ay squared plus bee squared” and while walking away, turns back and adds with a wink “…assuming a and b are anticommutative.”

[Bill Verburg]

Originally Posted by masraum

I still think that's a load of crap. Other than the one link, I can't find any other reference to that and I've never heard it before.

the hierarchy for the order of the arithmetic operations in 48÷2(9+3)
is
1) exponents which are all 1 so do nothing to simplify the expression
2) add inside parenthesis 48÷2(12)
3) multiply & divide from left to right 24(12) => 288
ans 288

[Bill Verburg]

In the perfect world of mathematics 0.999999... will never be equal to 1

in the world of computers/calculators all numerical results are limited to the memory architecture that is used. All answers that utilize the full array of available numerical memory or more will be rounded or truncated depending on how the instruction set is implemented.

[DARISC]

[ ( ) ] + / + [ ] =

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg

the hierarchy for the order of the arithmetic operations in 48÷2(9+3)
is
1) exponents which are all 1 so do nothing to simplify the expression
2) add inside parenthesis 48÷2(12)
3) multiply & divide from left to right 24(12) => 288
ans 288

Right, but according to the other guy.....

1. Exponents
2. Stuff inside parentheses
3. Stuff right next to but outside parentheses
4. Multiplication from left to right except the stuff in rule 3 that's stuck to the outside of the parentheses
5. Addition

According to him (not me)...

48÷2(12)-->48÷24=2

What I find so surprising is that the ratio in the poll keeps going farther and farther towards the wrong answer.

[krystar]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

Lol!

Let me just be honest here, I like math because chicks dig it.

big brains = big pen15? alright! i like that logic!

[Bill Verburg]

Originally Posted by masraum

Right, but according to the other guy.....

1. Exponents
2. Stuff inside parentheses
3. Stuff right next to but outside parentheses
4. Multiplication from left to right except the stuff in rule 3 that's stuck to the outside of the parentheses
5. Addition

According to him (not me)...

48÷2(12)-->48÷24=2

What I find so surprising is that the ratio in the poll keeps going farther and farther towards the wrong answer.

there are certainly a lot of students and ex students that are/were mediocre at best in math

to force the x before the ÷ in the above it would have to be in parenthesis
48 ÷ (2(12))

similarly
48 / 2 x 12 is not the same as 48 / (2 x 12)

[Bill Verburg]

3. Stuff right next to but outside parentheses

is not a rule to followed and has no bearing on this problem

4. Multiplication from left to right except the stuff in rule 3 that's stuck to the outside of the parentheses

would be correct if it said,
4. Multiplication from left to right

[DUK]

But if you set the 2 in the equation to x and set the equation equal to 288, x then = 1/72. Thus proving 2 is the correct answer.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg

there are certainly a lot of students and ex students that are/were mediocre at best in math

to force the x before the ÷ in the above it would have to be in parenthesis
48 ÷ (2(12))

similarly
48 / 2 x 12 is not the same as 48 / (2 x 12)

You know that. I know that, and about 35% of the guys on Pelican know that. The guys that really need convincing are these two.

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

One SHOULD interpret the equation in the conventional way. The convention used in EVERY math course, EVERY physics course, and EVERY engineering course I (or anyone else) has ever taken is that you do the implied multiplication or division on a parenthetical term immediately after you perform the work inside the parenthesis.
To an engineer the intent of the calculation 48/2*9+3 is ambiguous. The intent of 48/2(9+3) is clear as a bell. Everything to the left of the division sign is in the numerator, everything to the right is in the denominator.

Originally Posted by romad

2(9+3) is one term. the parenthesis do not drop off after you work 9+3

so 48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
48/24
2

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Those are the same problem.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by DUK

But if you set the 2 in the equation to x and set the equation equal to 288, x then = 1/72. Thus proving 2 is the correct answer.

Huh???

48÷2(9+3)=288

48÷X(9+3)=288

(9+3)=288/48 or 1/X(9+3)=288/48
X

(9+3)=X
6

X=2

Originally Posted by DUK

set the 2 in the equation to x

The best way to write this problem so that everyone should be able to understand it

1 x 48 x (9+3)=288
2

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by masraum

You know that. I know that, and about 35% of the guys on Pelican know that.

The BIG takeaway from this thread for me is a sharpened consideration of how much stock to put in polls.

[trekkor]

the wrong answer

Guys, admit you were wrong and move on.

It's 288.

That's it.



KT

[ed martin]

You can go to a site, Algebraic Order of Operations Calculator. According to that, the answer is 288.

You get the division sign by hitting the Alt key and then 2,4,6 simutaniously (the key pad to the right) and release.

My initial thinking was that 2 in the equation was a factor or a coefficient and so that side would get resolved first with the result being 2. But this seems to be not the case. It's treated as a multiplier, so it follows that the order is from left to right.

[Bill Verburg]

Originally Posted by DUK

But if you set the 2 in the equation to x and set the equation equal to 288, x then = 1/72. Thus proving 2 is the correct answer.

48÷2(9+3)=288

ok to check

48÷X(9+3)=288

rewrite in rational form


inside parenthesis


multiply numerators & denominators


cross multiply


perform the inverse operation