that is another great discriminator between those that paid attention and those that didn't

-3 x -3 = 9

see, we already have one wrong answer

the unary minus is not included in the exponential operation

the correct answer is -9

for the minus to be included in the exponential operation it must be in a parenthesis
(-3)²
-3 x -3
9

-3²
-3 x 3
-9

and no you can not arbitrarily add a parenthesis nor is it implied or implicit

no wonder this country is falling behind the rest of the world

Right, and starting a sentence with capitalization, and ending with a period, is another great discriminator between those that paid attention and those that didn't. :rolleyes:

Clearly some here are SO myopic on THE RULES (they learned in the third grade) that they neglect to consider how people actually use(d) (or misuse) the tool. You can't simply conclude that a sloppily written eqn -or a historic eqn - or an eqn written for some programming- has followed the Left to Right rule.

Notation rules are not laws of physics. For quite some time multiplication was always prior to division.

Again, see Wiki -Mathematical_notation Ambiguity
Esp read under the heading "Expressions" and "Examples of potentially confusing ambiguous mathematical expressions."

tsk tsk . .

Capitalization and punctuation - no wonder this country is falling behind the rest of the world.

:p

Hot air blowing in circles again.
Not to worry; mindless dust devil.
Chaff is mildly annoying though.

then stfu

seriously, step away from the clown-shoes.

You're forgetting a parentheses - seriously.

I never claimed any expertise wrt typing and composition some on the other hand refuse to acknowledge their own deficiency wrt to math skills

just because you don't understand the rules doesn't mean that they don't exist or are irrelevant or are confusing,

YOU just don't know what you think you know

It's so easy to sit there and snipe( it is after all the last defense of the ignorant), much harder to actually learn something and even harder to try to explain to close minded individuals what the actual procedure to to do something is .

I give up, the Luddites out there can continue to believe whatever they wish:(

Sheesh .

Ya know, it's so easy to sit there and snipe( it is after all the last defense of the ignorant), much harder to actually learn something and even harder to try to explain to close minded individuals what the actual procedure to to do something is .

Seriously, don't act as if what I say AND BACK UP is just some bs, just because it's not what you "know."

edit: btw, I DO understand the rules and I never even hinted that they don't exist or are irrelevant or are confusing, Rather, from my first post I called the OP eqn for what it was. Perhaps you thought that I had claimed a numeric answer to the eqn.

You've said a lot and backed up nothing

citing a Wikipedia article is not backing anything up and what you have posted is ignorant BS

It's a shame that some here haven't taken the opportunity to actually learn something,

Knowledge is indistinguishable from magic to the ignorant and close minded

seriously, there is no parenthesis in the expression, or in the evaluation of it
-3²
-3 x 3

just, wow.

I cited sources other than Wikipedia. ...but just because it's more than you've cited, don't let the facts get in the way.


btw; I expect that Art was expecting -3² = -(3 x 3 ) ...for clarity sake.

So in your world piling more BS and off topic distractions an top of the existing pile of BS is the same as adding enlightenment to the subject?

if Art wishes to think of
-3²
as -1(3)² that is perfectly acceptable and gives the correct result

No, the big pile of BS is in the answers 2 or 228.

My contribution was to reinforce the what a few other have said - that this OP eqn was intentionally ambiguous from the start.

I believe the same. I'll hate to see him go, but I'm sure he's well aware of the futility of his efforts regarding some here and is probably close to, if not at, his threshold of patience.

I've learned more than a few things from his posts and I'm sure many others have also.

The equation is

not ambiguous.

You are thick.

I thought no was paying attention to my posts hence the delete. Gentlemen, IMO this thread has now evolved into(for a few) some sense of perceived embarrassment. However, this need not be the case as no one knows everything. Hey thats why we have PM's... maybe some here should consider using them... if they cannot acquiesce publicly.

Oh, I see. Really can't refute your solid logic there.

I mean YOU, Dari -the clown O' truth- is decrying this; making for a strong, irrefutable interpretation of unbending truth. No other interpretations can exist, or ever have existed.

Only the wheat-boys know the real truth - beyond which no other truth exists! --just stupidity.:rolleyes:

uhm, yeah, dari. . .you really have nothing. (nothing new there)

Quote:
Originally Posted by island911t
"Yet the Global Warming / Climate Change Hoaxers push on..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by DARISC
...as island sits squirming in his chair with his hewland puckered, trying desperately to prove that 48÷2(9+3) =

Quote:
Originally Posted by island911
I don't get it? 48/24=2 . . .is there some thread on this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by island911
I've purposely have been avoiding this thread,
(48/2)(9+3) = 288

You're either confused or a liar.

Which is it island911?