THERE ARE BROWN RINGS AROUND URANUS!!

Google it!

"Uranus has a faint system of 13 narrow, elliptical-shaped rings, composed of dark dust and rocks up to about 10 meters in diameter. The ring system was discovered in 1977, during an occultation of a star by the planet. As the star first approached and then receded behind the planet it appear to blink off and on – a blinking found to be due to a system of rings."

Funny true story:

It was 1977, I was reading and Joe Garagiola's TV show was on. I wasn't watching but looked up when I heard Joe say, Did you know there are brown rings around your anus? More on this after a word from our sponsor. Whaaat?!

When he came back he had on one of the astronomers who'd discovered the brown rings around Uranus, which he pronounced YOURuhnuss - which was not the way Joe had pronounced it. :D

What happens if you enter the nine characters- 48/2(9+3) -with no interpretation on your part, what does your calculator return?

Ya know, what's really sad is that so many of you guys who claim to be competent in math can't come up with the correct solution to an extremely simple basic algebra equation working it out longhand, then pick up your calculators and STILL get it wrong.

I looked at it and solved it as I read it, without even picking up a pencil. And I'm an artist! :rolleyes:

The answer in my head was 2, in my excel spreadsheet that formula is 288, so 2 is wrong. If you answered 2 you are a failure.

What was your answer?

Your calculator succeeded.
You're an admitted failure.
You also failed to read this thread or you'd know my answer.

While I agree wholeheartedly that 288 is the correct answer, I disagree with the notion that we can or should trust computers to think for us. After all, the software that runs on them is programmed by (usually) the lowest bid guy. As such, I don't place all THAT much stake in computerized results without verification... The computerized results are there to augment our thinking, not replace it with some programmer's.

Do you really want some low-bid programming contractor out of India (or wherever) doing your thinking for you? I know I don't.

It's nice that Excel validates the correct result but in reality all it means is some Microsoft contractor agrees that the method of calculation used to obtain the 288 result is the same as (some of) us here.

I got 288. From what I can remember you work the problem from left to right first, then within the parentheses.

Late to the party, but congratulations on getting 288. BTW, my answer was 288, if you could check the poll that would verify it.

18 pages of this? really?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1303248198.jpg

On this very page:

HA HA HA!! Late to the party and out to lunch.

You're a real piece of work Doug. :D

The issue w/ anyone that gets 2 for answer is that they do not understand the hierarchy of arithmetic operations

w/o parenthesis or exponents and understanding that a fraction is just a numerator divided by a denominator i.e a division
you do multiplication or division from left to right first, then addition or subtraction from left to right.

A better way to think is using the rule that terms are separated by + or - that are not in parenthesis. Then simplify term by term using the old mnemonic PEMDAS(inside parenthesis, exponents, multiplication & division(L to R), addition & subtraction(L to R) there are some short cuts using commutative properties of the real #s that are usually used.
3/4 + 1 - 2 * 2 + 3*5 (4 terms, work on them individually using PEMDAS)
.75 + 1 - 4 + 15 (still 4 terms but each is as simple as can be)
.75 +1 + 15 - 4 (using the commutative property I'd rewrite this grouping the + then the -)
16.75 - 4
12.75



if there are exponents you do them first as above
3^4/4 + 1 - 2 * 2 + 3*5^2 (4 terms)
81/4 + 1 - 4 + 3*25 (what is done in one term has nothing to do w/ what is done in the next, here exponent was done in the first term, multiplication in the third and exponent in the fourth)
20.25 + 1 - 4 + 75 ( still 4 terms, division is done in the first, nothing in the second and third, multiplication in the fourth)
20.25 + 1 +75 - 4(use the commutative property to group the + then the - terms)
96.25 - 4 (add all the terms w/ the same sign)
92.25 (subtract whats left)

parenthesis modify the above by requiring that what ever is inside them must be the first thing done, the only way a parenthesis is removed is by multiplication, barring an explicit multiplication the parenthesis is multiplied by 1
3^4/(4 + 1) - 2 * 2 + (3*5)^2 - (-3)^3 (4terms)
81/(5) - 4 + (15)^2 - (-27) (still 4 terms, exponent was done in the first, multiplication in the second, inside parenthesis multiplication in the third, exponent in the fourth)
81/5 - 4 - (225) + 27 (still 4 terms, parenthesis is multiplied by the understood 1 to remove it, second remains unaltered, third is multiplied by -1 to remove it, in the fourth -1 is multiplied by the parenthesis to remove it)
16.2 - 4 - 225 + 27 (still 4 terms, only the third was changed by multiplying it by -1)
16.2 + 27 - 4 - 225 ( use the commutative property to group + and -)
43.2 - 229 (add the terms w/ the same sign then subtract )
-185.8

Can I have my vote back?

You are easily amused, I think. If I was playing chess and moved a piece without taking my hand off of it and and returned it to its original place, I image you would be rolling on the floor with laughter.

Indeed, you are a strange one. You are nearly as odd as Dipso.

Hey, Darisc

Question: What is brown and sticky?


wait for it.....




wait for it.....











Answer: A stick.

Maybe someone should start a follow up poll.

288 or 2?

The results would be public.



KT

Great idea! Wait - wasn't 2 or 2whatever that the original poll??

Post #322
post #323
post #353
post #354
This is one hilarious thread!!! :D

Easy answer:

Let me google that for you: 48/2(9+3)

Well folks, if Google says 288, then 288 it is!

I still say it's 2.........so there.....


nah nah nahboo boo

OK then. It's been two days now with no new posts.

Everyone agrees now that the correct answer is 288' right?

Excellent!

Agreed! Thread closed!

Kiddin' - thread's still open for those who still think the world is flat -- er, I mean for those who still think the correct answer is 2.

:D

-Z