[QUOTE=jdlowery;5971545]I'm joining this thread late...]/QUOTE]

Doesn't matter; how do you explain that the above eight calculators say it's 288?

But multiplication and division have the same priority. So then what?!? (order of operations then say if you have equal priority operands, you go left to right).

Also - if you re-write "divided by two" as "multiplied by 0.5" is is the same thing....

-Z-man.

Yes

Close, but not quite.


Before you post, I'd advise reading the whole thread. You may then want to edit your post.

I seriously think a new poll is in order. This one is stale. If it yields the same result, I will be even more stunned than I am now.

Honestly, I wouldn't expect the results to be that different.

I know. And that's pretttty scary, eh?

The whole world has not resolved this...time to stick a fork in it.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1303216804.jpg

At least I found my missing dollar - so - I'm happy. :p

Awesome image..........makes me feel better.:)

Or we can discuss the 'programming' of the Ti 85 vs Ti 86?

(Probably a good thing they used slide rules to "go to the moon?")

Finally got around to googling this issue. Forums are filled with this question and a 50/50 vote is very popular with some showing 2 as winning.

It all comes down to interpretation of intent. I'm in the construction business and 'intent' joins every argument. While the exact text, drawings, dimensions say x, we intended them to be (x) and a professional reasonable person would have understood our intent - I hear that argument all the time.

Did the author intend 48/24 or 48 / 2 * 12?

The basic rules of order are established to maintain order, but they do not establish intent.

Other rules start to enter when there is a disagreement such as juxtaposition

From Wikidef

def: 1. An absence of operators in an expression.

2. The extra emphasis given to a comparison when the contrasted
objects are close together.

So I would argue that the authors intent (based on juxtaposition) is for the answer to be 2 not 288. If the author intended 288 why did he use the ÷
symbol for divide and a juxtaposition for multiply? He should have written the equation so his intention was clear such as 48/2*(9+3).

If rules are rules everything is black and white.

This thread at least proves that the world is very grey - or is is gray?

Garbage in, garbage out. The controversy is in how to interpret the problem, not how to do the arithmetic. If you interpret it one way, you get 288 whether you do it with a Cray or an abacus. Interpret it the other way and you get 2.

If you literally enter 48/2(9+3) in a TI 55II it returns the answer 4. (I have to use the division sign instead of the slash, but all other terms are given exactly as show in the order shown.) I wonder what your calculators return if you don't interpret the problem for them.

No need to repost or read through 17 pages. Take a standardized test and put the answer you think is right.

Also, someone else posted that multiplication and division have the same priority. I don't believe this is true. Multiplication tops division. Unless of course all basic math rules have changed since grade school.

My ti-30xIIs says 288...

Oh no you don't! I'll walk a mile in a camel's shoes to pass through the eye of a needle before I'll bite off the bullet and let you think that you've beaten the carrot with a stick!

I'm not trying to poke holes at anybody, but damn, this is like pulling hen's teeth...and your going to a resort to use missed metaphors really takes the cake.

Well let me tell you, with no pun extended, no matter how many flagpoles you run that cake up, they'll all crumble and in the end and you'll be holding the bag of cookies that won't bounce and find yourself eating humble crow.

Oh, never mind. If you want to fiddle with your guitar while Rome burns the midnight oil at both ends, go right ahead. I give up.

September 30, 1999

CNN NASA lost a 125 million Mars orbiter because one engineering team used metric units while another used English units for a key spacecraft operation, according to a review finding released Thursday.

For that reason, information failed to transfer between the Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft team at Lockheed Martin in Colorado and the mission navigation team in California. Lockheed Martin built the spacecraft.
_________________

You say potato - I say putato.

Math - dealing in "absolutes" since day one!

* This thread is hilarious.

If that is your case fine........you can lead a horse to water but try and make him drink. Really its like pushing a rope.

I feel like I'm beating you over the head with a dead horse, but I have noose for you; it's you who are pushing a rope when you should be shooting pool with a noodle.

Excel 2010 says "=48/2*(9+3)" =288

SweetPea MO (April 19 2011)

Distressed taxpayers note: NASA announced today that it's previously lost, 125 million dollar Mars orbiter is now approaching URANUS.

Film at eleven.