48÷2(9+3) = ????

[trekkor]

48_2_9_3_ = 288

Fill in the blanks.


KT

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by trekkor

48_2_9_3_ = 288

Fill in the blanks.


KT

Well that's to easy trek, i jus have to look up to the titel of the thread.

48÷2(9+3) = 288

[trekkor]

See? easy.


KT

[mikesride]

Last time I checked... 12 only goes into 24 twice

[DARISC]

You had to check?

[DARISC]

Quote:Originally Posted by island911:

I don't get it? 48/24=2 . . .is there some thread on this?

[TimT]

You all are missing the answer...

The "go to" answer in higher math

" Undefined"

[DARISC]

That's freakin' hilarious!

Thank you Tim!

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Quote:Originally Posted by island911:

I don't get it? 48/24=2 . . .is there some thread on this?

No, there isn't .

Though there is a thread on 48÷2(9+3) = 288 , you're on that thread right now.

[scoe911]

288...

[DARISC]

POST #288 - THE POST POSTED TO PUT A PLUG IN THIS PIPE

[QUOTE=romad;5963196]The WHOLE internet can not make a conclusion. Has nothing to do with the education system. They sell t-shirts with the equation on it as a question mark. Its a flawed equation. Its has been for years. Just like writing a bad sentence.

********2 is no more correct than 288. ********/QUOTE]

Well THAT didn't work!

[island911]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Quote:Originally Posted by island911:

I don't get it? 48/24=2 . . .is there some thread on this?

I'll use green next time I think that my post is obviously enough sarcastic. (clearly I over-estimate s l o w people's sarcasm meter.)

I've purposely have been avoiding this thread, as it's stupidity from the start. (even by paRF standards) --it's like asking; what is meant by the phrase "whats inthe roadahead?

ans2: "whats in the road ahead?

ans228: "whats in the road a head?

or, the classic math ambiguity of 1/2x ...is it (.5)times a variable called X? ...or 1/(2x) {left to right rule}. . .or does it mean one-half the times ... ?

btw, as others have said; no one uses the ÷ symbol AND uses the implied multiplication of a number up against a bracket. --the "÷" symbol is used for grade-schoolers, who also us "x" or "*" for multiplication, and a strict left to right standard.

mathematical notation is nothing more than a way to represent relations. And, just as with any language, all your base are abused to us ÷

To properly write the eqn (for for grade-schoolers) you would write either:
48÷2x(9+3) = ????
-or-
48÷2÷(9+3) = ????

To properly write the eqn for a math user...

48/(2(9+3)) = 2
-or-
48/2/(9+3) = 2
-or-
(48/2)(9+3) = 288

. . .altho' a math user would know the context from the beginning.

[DARISC]

Once again (this is just too funny! ), on this very page:

Originally Posted by island911

I don't get it? 48/24=2 . . .is there some thread on this?

Originally Posted by island911

I've purposely have been avoiding this thread,

(48/2)(9+3) = 288

HA HA HA!

You're a real piece of work island911. You should dial island911 and get help.

You and Dougie crack me up!

[sammyg2]

You guys are outnumbered 2 to 1, you might as well give it up

[svandamme]

I've won from under dog positions worse then that.
2/1 is piece of piss to me... let me know if it hits 10/1,and i might get interested on the challenge part.

[DARISC]

Problem we have here is convincing 94 posters that disputed solutions to extremely complex and difficult algebraic equations are ALWAYS ultimately decided by polls.

How do they think we ever got a rocket to the moon?

Sheesh!

[svandamme]

If i remember correctly , it was with a big ass mofo of a rocket.

[island911]

I just trudged thru this thread, and it does have some redeeming value - now we know the stiffies who will demand that the eqn. as written, is w/o ambiguity because " third-grade rules always dictate mathematical syntax! . . .damnit! "

btw, Dari (you strange old fart) I did plug the eqn in to both my HP calc and into Mathcad (both eqn writers) and both gave 2. --the mult next to the bracket forces priority multiplication in the denominator.

[KFC911]

I haven't read this thread, but am amused that everyone seems to have "assumed base 10" Having lived most of my career in the binary/hexidecimal world, I honestly can't answer the OP's question without further info...

[kach22i]

Now 20 pages, remarkable.