What is the answer to 48/2(9+3)?

[sil3nt]

Just saw a big argument on another forum.

Is it 288 or 2?

My maths tells me its 288.

[Oblivion]

How did you get 288? Even looking at it, I still can't see it.

Anyway, according to BEDMAS, the answer is 2

[schrodingers cat]

BODMAS

B - Stands for Bracket.
O - Stands for "OF" or "Orders" (i.e. Powers and Square Roots, etc.)
D - Stands for Division.
M - Stands for Multiplication.
A - Stands for Addition.
S - Stands for Subtraction

You do the math

[sil3nt]

BODMAS

B - Stands for Bracket.
O - Stands for "OF" or "Orders" (i.e. Powers and Square Roots, etc.)
D - Stands for Division.
M - Stands for Multiplication.
A - Stands for Addition.
S - Stands for Subtraction

You do the math
Brackets - 9+3 = 12
Division - 48/2 = 24
Multiplication - 24 * 12 = 288

[BMWST?]

its 2
48 divide by 2(9+3)
unless you have missed out an operator its 48/2*12
48/24
2
its 288 if its written like this (48/2)(9+3)

[bogan]

288, but it is a poorly written equation, I can tell by the pixels :yes:

[schrodingers cat]

Brackets - 9+3 = 12
Division - 48/2 = 24
Multiplication - 24 * 12 = 288

Right you are then gov'ner

[Oblivion]

Brackets - 9+3 = 12
Division - 48/2 = 24
Multiplication - 24 * 12 = 288

But, the 2 is a coefficient of the bracket. So it still means that it will fall under the bracket step. I think.

[bogan]

But, the 2 is a coefficient of the bracket. So it still means that it will fall under the bracket step. I think.

I think it's an implicit multiplication, you generally only see it used that way if the preceding operator is an addition or subtraction, meaning the implicit multiplication takes precedence anyway.

[marie_speeds]

9+3=12
12 X 2 =24
48/12=2

on calculator 48/(2(9+3))=2 :p

[Latte]

9+3=12
12 X 2 =24
48/12=2

on calculator 48/(2(9+3))=2 :p

Take the extra brackets out, and it's 288........

[Oblivion]

I think it's an implicit multiplication, you generally only see it used that way if the preceding operator is an addition or subtraction, meaning the implicit multiplication takes precedence anyway.

After taking a look at it, really, the answer depends on whether it is written on one line or two.

If we write it on 2 lines,
48
____
2(9+3)

Then, of course the answer will be two. Because we are working with the denominator first, then simplifying. All because of the rules of algebra.

However, when it is written on one line, the rules of algebra will not apply, meaning that BEDMAS is used giving the answer as 288.

(48/2) *(9+3)

So create an either option please. :yes:

[mashman]

Answer. 2

48
________

2*(9+3)

heh, beated to it

[Oblivion]

Answer. 2

48
________

2*(9+3)

heh, beated to it

Really? Do I win a prize? :innocent:

[marie_speeds]

Take the extra brackets out, and it's 288........

on calculator which is programmed already for BEDMAS 48/2(9+3) still equals 2....:p

[mashman]

Really? Do I win a prize? :innocent:

:rofl: you can have my wife and kids for the weekend if ya like... I guarantee that's the best prize a man can have :shifty:

[Latte]

Interesting, does missing the operator between the 2 and (9+3) imply they are the same as being inside brackets?

48/2*(9+3) is definitely 288 , and thats how I read the original question.

Plugging 48/2(9+3) into google = 288.

[Latte]

on calculator which is programmed already for BEDMAS 48/2(9+3) still equals 2....:p

I only have the scientific calculator in windows :( - and thats 288.

BEDMAS isn't really relevant as we are only working with div/multi once the brackets are calculated (BEDMAS = BEMDAS = BEMDSA etc etc)

Quite interesting.

[pzkpfw]

[Edit: Snap!]

I'm with the 288.

But, for me division and multiplication are really the same thing. After all, multiply by 1/2 is the same as divide by 2. (Just like minus 2 is the same as plus negative 2).

So the rule is just, when written like this: left to right.

BO(DM)(AS) = BO(MD)(SA) = ...

48/2(9+3)
= 48/2x12 (brackets first)
= 24x12 (left)
= 288 (right)

Similarly, I'd do 2x6/3 as
= 12/3
= 4 (same answer as 2x2, of course)

Because, seen another way
2x6/3
= (2/1)x(6/3) because 2 = 2/1 (we just don't normally write the .../1)
= (2x6)/(1x3)
= 12/3
= 4

[marie_speeds]

Interesting, does missing the operator between the 2 and (9+3) imply they are the same as being inside brackets?

48/2*(9+3) is definitely 288 , and thats how I read the original question.

Plugging 48/2(9+3) into google = 288.

Using casio fx caculator which is programmed for BEDMAS answer is 2
48/2(9+3)
1.Solving inside the brackets first 9+3 = 12 you are now left with 48/2(12)
2. Eliminate the bracket altogether 2 x 12 =24
3. Do final division 48/24 = 2 :woohoo:

[bogan]

looks like some calculators are rebelling against google, this cannot end well

<img src="http://library.galciv2.com/mvlib/ss/Fullview_CylonPortrait.PNG" />

[pzkpfw]

Using casio fx caculator which is programmed for BEDMAS answer is 2
48/2(9+3)
1.Solving inside the brackets first 9+3 = 12 you are now left with 48/2(12)
2. Eliminate the bracket altogether 2 x 12 =24
3. Do final division 48/24 = 2 :woohoo:

That's a description, and your step 2 is weird. What exact keys are you pressing, in the exact order you are pressing them?

NB: Excel also gives the correct answer, 288. (Though the multiplication has to be explicitly written, of course).
In a cell: =48/2*(9+3)

[Oblivion]

looks like some calculators are rebelling against google, this cannot end well

<img src="http://library.galciv2.com/mvlib/ss/Fullview_CylonPortrait.PNG" />

You're a disgrace to the Terminator :innocent:

[mashman]

The computer programme says 288.

Tis only 2 if there's brackets around (2(9+3))... bagga

[marie_speeds]

That's a description. What exact keys are you pressing, in the exact order you are pressing them?

on casio fx-82MS which is a basic scientific
48/2(9+3)=

convert the cartesian form of 3 +j4 into polar form?

ha ha ha = 5 at angle of 53.13 degrees basic farken trig.....


one more vino and i won't be able to do that

[huff3r]

Using casio fx caculator which is programmed for BEDMAS answer is 2
48/2(9+3)
1.Solving inside the brackets first 9+3 = 12 you are now left with 48/2(12)
2. Eliminate the bracket altogether 2 x 12 =24
3. Do final division 48/24 = 2 :woohoo:

You do not eliminate the bracket by multiplying first. BEDMAS only applies as in solve whats INSIDE the bracket first, so once you reach the end of step one then you simply solve left to right.

48/2 = 24
24*12 = 288

You people havent been to school in far too long :P

[pzkpfw]

on casio fx-82MS which is a basic scientific
48/2(9+3)=



I happen to have an FX-82MS right here in front of me (Daughters from school).

Typing 48/2x(9+3)= gives 288.

Same on a more advanced FX power graphic calculator I've also got here.

If you are getting 2, you are doing something weird.... missing out the multiplication between the 2 and the brackets.

OK, I admit that's weird (of the calculator). That seems to force it to do things in that order. As though it were 48/(2x(9+3)).

That would freak me out.

[huff3r]

Also, BEDMAS correctly written should read:

B
E
DM
AS

As division and multiplication have the same importance, as do Addition and Subtraction.

[marie_speeds]

I happen to have an FX-82MS right here in front of me (Daughetrs from school).

Typing 48/2x(9+3)= gives 288.

Same on a more advanced FX power graphic calculator I've also got here.

If you are getting 2, you are doing something weird.

type it in as original 48/2(9+3) do not put 2x as you have done

[Oblivion]

I happen to have an FX-82MS right here in front of me (Daughetrs from school).

Typing 48/2x(9+3)= gives 288.

Same on a more advanced FX power graphic calculator I've also got here.

If you are getting 2, you are doing something weird.

You are putting the times in the equation. She isnt. That's why they're different.

[huff3r]

type it in as original 48/2(9+3) do not put 2x as you have done

The times is required, scientific calculators aren't quite smart enough for implicit multiplication.

[YellowDog]

15 seconds in my head said 2

Google says 288, but Google shows how 288 is wrong.

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

But that's just not the question being asked.

[bogan]

You're a disgrace to the Terminator :innocent:

pffft, even the old cylons would fuck up the best skynet has to offer, and they've had thousands of year to spec up, skynet hasn't even been invented yet.

also, matlab (very power engineering maths program) throws a misused parentheses error, end of discussion?

[Oblivion]

The times is required, scientific calculators aren't quite smart enough for implicit multiplication.

The times depends on whether you want to solve as an algebraic way, or solve it as a linear equation. No times means that equations should be solved algebraically, and should be written as such.

48
_____
2(9+3)

When we put times in the equation is linear. Giving 288.

[Tink]

Just saw a big argument on another forum.

Is it 288 or 2?

My maths tells me its 288.

Your math is correct... BODMAS... and they teach that in Year 6

If one even did it on a calculator correctly they would reach 288. :)

[pzkpfw]

You are putting the times in the equation. She isnt. That's why they're different.

Yeah, noticed that just after I first posted (and before I saw your reply).

Frankly I think that's just weird of the calculator. There is a multiplication there 2(9+3) = 2 x (9+3), and there's no reason why that should take precedence over the division.

I still go with Excel, Google and normal usage of a calculator.. and say it's 288.

[huff3r]

15 seconds in my head said 2

Google says 288, but Google shows how 288 is wrong.

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

But that's just not the question being asked.

Actually that is the question being asked. That is exactly what is being asked. If you want it more complicated though you can do this:

(48)/(2)*(9+3)

It'll give the same answer of 288.
It is high school maths and reasonably easy to follow.
Brackets first. Then multiply/divide through left to right.
You cannot multiply out the brackets before dividing, that is not following the rules of operations.

[Oblivion]

end of discussion?

Thats not the KB way :weird:

[marie_speeds]

The times is required, scientific calculators aren't quite smart enough for implicit multiplication.

mine is :sunny: i have typed it in exactly as it is written in OP

[huff3r]

The times depends on whether you want to solve as an algebraic way, or solve it as a linear equation. No times means that equations should be solved algebraically, and should be written as such.

48
_____
2(9+3)

When we put times in the equation is linear. Giving 288.

For that to be true ihave to be written as 48/(2(9+3)).

Without the second set of brackets it cannot be assumed to be algebraic, and thherefore must be solved linearly. Hence why it is VERY important that people put the correct brackets in the correct places when writing and solving equations, particularly on a calculator, or where the numerator/denominator format you use cannot be represented correctly.

[marie_speeds]

The times depends on whether you want to solve as an algebraic way, or solve it as a linear equation. No times means that equations should be solved algebraically, and should be written as such.

48
_____
2(9+3)

When we put times in the equation is linear. Giving 288.

Written the way you have done 48 is now divided by everything underneath the line once everything under the line is solved

[Oblivion]

For that to be true ihave to be written as 48/(2(9+3)).

Without the second set of brackets it cannot be assumed to be algebraic, and thherefore must be solved linearly. Hence why it is VERY important that people put the correct brackets in the correct places when writing and solving equations, particularly on a calculator, or where the numerator/denominator format you use cannot be represented correctly.

Okay then.

Is 2(9+3) Algebraic or linear?

[Tink]

For that to be true ihave to be written as 48/(2(9+3)).

Without the second set of brackets it cannot be assumed to be algebraic, and thherefore must be solved linearly. Hence why it is VERY important that people put the correct brackets in the correct places when writing and solving equations, particularly on a calculator, or where the numerator/denominator format you use cannot be represented correctly.

Surely if your given an equation you should complete as shown, changing it can happen, but the answer must be the same.

I only needed too look at it and new it could not be 2!

[huff3r]

Okay then.

Is 2(9+3) Algebraic or linear?

Linear. But solve either way and the answer is the same.
However it matters not, even if the equation in question is algebraic, you must still follow order of operations, and you cannot put it as

48
2(9+3)

But rather may put it as:

48
2 (and then in-line with the fraction line) (9+3)

Which is solved completely differently, as the division is then done before multiplication. The (9+3) IS NOT in any way involved as a denominator in the equation, regardless of how it is approached.

[Oblivion]

Linear. But solve either way and the answer is the same.
However it matters not, even if the equation in question is algebraic, you must still follow order of operations, and you cannot put it as

48
2(9+3)

But rather may put it as:

48
2 (and then in-line with the fraction line) (9+3)

Which is solved completely differently, as the division is then done before multiplication. The (9+3) IS NOT in any way involved as a denominator in the equation, regardless of how it is approached.

Who says that we cannot write it as the first option?

The 2 is part of the brackets. Thats how algebra works. The 2 is a coefficient of what is in the brackets.

[marie_speeds]

Now I know why the government has forced tertiary institutes to embed numeracy and literacy into all their courses :facepalm:

[Oblivion]

Now I know why the government has forced tertiary institutes to embed numeracy and literacy into all their courses :facepalm:

So we can have an arguement and not embarrass ourselves? :blink:

[huff3r]

Who says that we cannot write it as the first option?

The 2 is part of the brackets. Thats how algebra works. The 2 is a coefficient of what is in the brackets.

No, I'm sorry but thats not true. The 2 is attached to the brackets sure, and indeed cannot be seperated when working with true algebra, but when all numbers are provided then seperation is completely possible. The rules of equations say that you cannot re-arrange something that is not a denominator to make it into one. That completely changes the equation, which is why it completely changes the answer.

In short, 48/2 is a seperate entity to the brackets despite the lack of a multiplication symbol. Besides which, BEDMAS specifies the B as solving whats INSIDE the brackets first, whats OUTSIDE the brackets should not be solved until it's operation (in this case multiplication) falls due.

[marie_speeds]

So we can have an arguement and not embarrass ourselves? :blink:

I'm not embarrassed yet just a bit tipsy :drinkup:

[Oblivion]

No, I'm sorry but thats not true. The 2 is attached to the brackets sure, and indeed cannot be seperated when working with true algebra, but when all numbers are provided then seperation is completely possible. The rules of equations say that you cannot re-arrange something that is not a denominator to make it into one. That completely changes the equation, which is why it completely changes the answer.

In short, 48/2 is a seperate entity to the brackets despite the lack of a multiplication symbol. Besides which, BEDMAS specifies the B as solving whats INSIDE the brackets first, whats OUTSIDE the brackets should not be solved until it's operation (in this case multiplication) falls due.

I'll ask my Calc teacher on Monday and see what he thinks. I presume his answer will be very enlightening to the both of us.

I'm still fixed that the answer it indeed 2.

[pzkpfw]

To me the interesting thing here is the way the calculator is treating "implied" multiplication.

Googling showed up it's a common question: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/72166.html


I thought this was interesting too - a given calc isn't even always consistent: http://www.yorktech.com/department/math/calculate/implied_83.htm

[huff3r]

I'll ask my Calc teacher on Monday and see what he thinks. I presume his answer will be very enlightening to the both of us.

I'm still fixed that the answer it indeed 2.

As I said before, it depends how you write it. But it is assumed in general conventions that when a / is used it is to infer a division symbol, rather than a fraction, and therefore when a fraction is intended then the proper use of brackets (i.e 48/(2(9+3) ) is essential. This example didnt differentiate using those extra required brackets, so must be treated as a simple division.

I'm reasonably sure your Calc teacher should agree with me, as I did a fair bit of basic algebra/fractions/order of operations work in the first week of my Calc paper at Massey.

[huff3r]

To me the interesting thing here is the way the calculator is treating "implied" multiplication.

Googling showed up it's a common question: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/72166.html


I thought this was interesting too - a given calc isn't even always consistent: http://www.yorktech.com/department/math/calculate/implied_83.htm


Indeed, we were always taught not to trust our calculators order of operations programming, and therefore include ALL necessary signs, as well as extra brackets to make it totally clear how the equation is to be solved.

[Oblivion]

As I said before, it depends how you write it. But it is assumed in general conventions that when a / is used it is to infer a division symbol, rather than a fraction, and therefore when a fraction is intended then the proper use of brackets (i.e 48/(2(9+3) ) is essential. This example didnt differentiate using those extra required brackets, so must be treated as a simple division.

I'm reasonably sure your Calc teacher should agree with me, as I did a fair bit of basic algebra/fractions/order of operations work in the first week of my Calc paper at Massey.

Division is one number, over another number. Aka: A fraction.

[bogan]

To me the interesting thing here is the way the calculator is treating "implied" multiplication.

Googling showed up it's a common question: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/72166.html


I thought this was interesting too - a given calc isn't even always consistent: http://www.yorktech.com/department/math/calculate/implied_83.htm

implied multiplication would require a special rule in bodmas to have it equal to 2, there isn't, so it's 288. Even the wiki refers to it


An expression like 1/2x is interpreted as 1/(2x) by TI-82, but as (1/2)x by TI-83. While the first interpretation may be expected by some users, only the latter is in agreement with the standard rules stated above.

now we can move on to more important discussion, like who would win a cylon vs skynet war? Obviously hypothetical as we'd be long fucked up!

[Oblivion]

implied multiplication would require a special rule in bodmas to have it equal to 2, there isn't, so it's 288. Even the wiki refers to it



now we can move on to more important discussion, like who would win a cylon vs skynet war? Obviously hypothetical as we'd be long fucked up!

Its too bad....Theres nothing of equal value that can replace a woman as of yet. Should we hurry up and make robots?

[pzkpfw]

Indeed, we were always taught not to trust our calculators order of operations programming, and therefore include ALL necessary signs, as well as extra brackets to make it totally clear how the equation is to be solved.

Agree. When I'm programming I also stick brackets all over the place "just to be sure". Some of them are not needed, but they make it VERY clear to the future programmer reading the code.

I was thinking about that "implied multiplication".

If I saw 16/2Y and was told Y = 4, I'd actually tend to come up with 2 as the answer, not 32.

That is, I'd tend to do 16/(2 x 4) not (16 / 2) x 4

In this case, I can sort of see why the calculator has that "implied multiplication" mode.

Dangerous, very dangerous.

[huff3r]

Division is one number, over another number. Aka: A fraction.

Yup, but it can only be interpreted as ONE number over One other number unless brackets, or a proper format of fraction is used.

As said above, answer is 288. Please hand over your calculator licence as you will now be serving a 28 day loss of licence without conviction.

Your just lucky there's no fine or demerits for that :P

[marie_speeds]

implied multiplication would require a special rule in bodmas to have it equal to 2, there isn't, so it's 288. Even the wiki refers to it



now we can move on to more important discussion, like who would win a cylon vs skynet war? Obviously hypothetical as we'd be long fucked up!

Where the fark is my bottle opener I ony had it like how many minutes ago????
now that is more important :yes:

[pzkpfw]

implied multiplication would require a special rule in bodmas to have it equal to 2, there isn't, so it's 288. Even the wiki refers to it

I agree that 288 is "correct" but I can't deny that the calculator comes up with 2 when it's typed that way.

The "implied multiplication" has a specific kind of use. (As exampled in my post above this one).

[Oblivion]

Yup, but it can only be interpreted as ONE number over One other number unless brackets, or a proper format of fraction is used.

As said above, answer is 288. Please hand over your calculator licence as you will now be serving a 28 day loss of licence without conviction.

Your just lucky there's no fine or demerits for that :P

............ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM................ ..

You now have a chase on your hands. Please abort or you will injure nearby civilians.

[Tink]

Ok guys I have a basic maths brain but I KNOW that the answer is def 288.

[huff3r]

I agree that 288 is "correct" but I can't deny that the calculator comes up with 2 when it's typed that way.

The "implied multiplication" has a specific kind of use. (As exampled in my post above this one).

Indeed written as you have written it above the answer would be 32, however it would depend as to how that equation was obtained, and if written in the form

16
2Y

Then the answer is 2. Otherwise if that was the intended interpretation I'd definitely write as 16/(2Y)

Would make a good trick question in a Maths test. Very sneaky.

[bogan]

Its too bad....Theres nothing of equal value that can replace a woman as of yet. Should we hurry up and make robots?

Raises the question, terminator 3 terminator chick, or end of caprica series chick? (cos she is more robotic than hottie blonde cylon from BSG so a more even comparison)

Mind you, skynet has motorcycles while cylons do not, it's a complex debate :yes:

[mashman]

Even the wiki refers to it



An expression like 1/2x is interpreted as 1/(2x) by TI-82, but as (1/2)x by TI-83. While the first interpretation may be expected by some users, only the latter is in agreement with the standard rules stated above.


now we can move on to more important discussion, like who would win a cylon vs skynet war? Obviously hypothetical as we'd be long fucked up!

I'll go for whichever robot had it's resistor calculations done using the TI-82 :innocent:

[Oblivion]

Raises the question, terminator 3 terminator chick, or end of caprica series chick? (cos she is more robotic than hottie blonde cylon from BSG so a more even comparison)

Mind you, skynet has motorcycles while cylons do not, it's a complex debate :yes:

As long as it has motorcycles. It'd be boring without them. Where would I get my daily dose of firsthand 16,000 rpm?

[bogan]

As long as it has motorcycles. It'd be boring without them. Where would I get my daily dose of firsthand 16,000 rpm?

a cylon handy could probly get those sorta speeds :gob:

[huff3r]

More importantly. Can anyone tell me what the square root of negative one is? I'm sure it's really easy to find, but I just can't figure it out! The calculator just thinks i have mummy issues, keeps coming up with "Ma Error".




(For the lols)

[Oblivion]

a cylon handy could probly get those sorta speeds :gob:

But It'd probably be like a Harley though. Makes lots of noise and doesn't go anywhere. :Pokey:

[Brian d marge]

I got 42

Stephen

and I waited an awful long time

[Oblivion]

More importantly. Can anyone tell me what the square of negative one is? I'm sure it's really easy to find, but I just can't figure it out! The calculator just thinks i have mummy issues, keeps coming up with "Ma Error".




(For the lols)

-1^2 is +1.

Ack......damn black writing :rofl:

[huff3r]

-1^2 is +1.

Ack......damn black writing :rofl:

Damn, meant to say square root!!

The answer is totally unreal :lol:

[Oblivion]

Damn, meant to say square root!!

The answer is totally unreal :lol:

Be rational. :shit:

[bogan]

But It'd probably be like a Harley though. Makes lots of noise and doesn't go anywhere. :Pokey:

I'd be more worried about it ripping you dick off, or severe friction burns :blink:

[huff3r]

I'd be more worried about it ripping you dick off, or severe friction burns :blink:

Nah, it'd use castrols latest in synthetic lubricants. It'd be sweet as, but might leave things a little oily....

[Oblivion]

Nah, it'd use castrols latest in synthetic lubricants. It'd be sweet as, but might leave things a little oily....

Don't use Nivea for Men as your lubricant. It leaves you dry longer.

[The Pastor]

for it to be 288 it would have to be written as (48/2)(9+3), as it is not written like this it must be 2.

[ac3_snow]

for it to be 288 it would have to be written as (48/2)(9+3), as it is not written like this it must be 2.

ditto the only way to get 288 is if it was produced as 48/2x(9+3) or as above.

written as the way the op did it equals 2. the way the op wrote the equation places it as 42 over 2(9+3)

[Katman]

I think you're all just taking the piss.

It's not even a real question.

[Laava]

It's 288 if you have your restricted and have just passed a practical exam for your full license. Now shut up and go to bed. Don't make me come in there!

[Gremlin]

ditto the only way to get 288 is if it was produced as 48/2x(9+3) or as above.

written as the way the op did it equals 2. the way the op wrote the equation places it as 42 over 2(9+3)
What you've written (I've bolded) is actually exactly the same as the original question. 2( is actually 2x(

Therefore, the brackets are resolved, (12) and then it goes from left to right, as multiplication and division have the same priority. It's 48 / 2 x 12 = 288.

For it to be as you say in the second, the equation would need to be on two lines. Brackets would be implied on both lines, to resolve each line, then the division.

[slofox]

What you've written (I've bolded) is actually exactly the same as the original question. 2( is actually 2x(

Therefore, the brackets are resolved, (12) and then it goes from left to right, as multiplication and division have the same priority. It's 48 / 2 x 12 = 288.

For it to be as you say in the second, the equation would need to be on two lines. Brackets would be implied on both lines, to resolve each line, then the division.

Why aren't you in bed at 2.36am, huh?

[ac3_snow]

What you've written (I've bolded) is actually exactly the same as the original question. 2( is actually 2x(

yes correct but the whether the multiplication symbol is there or not changes the status of the 2. when its just 2(9+3) then it is part of the brackets piece of bedmas and gets done before the division.
If the multiplication symbol is in place then multiplying what's in the brackets happens after the division of 48/2
all depends how its wtitten too, but as written in the op answer=2
see like this ----:drinkup: two !

[marie_speeds]

Right I've had my weetbix and the alcohol is mostly out of my system and I still cannot see how you get 288.

I interpret equation written as thus:
48
-----------
2(9+3)
Following the rules of BEDMAS
1. Solve inside the brackets 9+3 =12 which makes equation 48/2(12)
2. Expand the brackets 2x12=24 which now makes 48/24
3. Solved = 2

Cross mutipication of fractions still comes up as 2 when solving inside brackets first:
48 12
___ x ___ = 2
2 1

It is my thought that if it is done as so that 24 x 12= 288 the brackets are now being expanded last?

[cowboyz]

my head hurts!... is this how they work out the regos?

[marie_speeds]

Can't get my fractions sorted sorry should show 48 over 2 multiplied by 12 over 1

[schrodingers cat]

Top thread, thread starter fella!

Perfect for KB. No bastard can agree about something that ultimately doesn't matter a toss.
Battlelines are drawn. Shit is hurled. Reputation is sullied.
86 posts and climbing fast
Awesome...
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[jazfender]

Just carry the 1 bro...

[yungatart]

What you've written (I've bolded) is actually exactly the same as the original question. 2( is actually 2x(

Therefore, the brackets are resolved, (12) and then it goes from left to right, as multiplication and division have the same priority. It's 48 / 2 x 12 = 288.

For it to be as you say in the second, the equation would need to be on two lines. Brackets would be implied on both lines, to resolve each line, then the division.

This is correct.
The multiplication step is implied as Gremlin says.
It is year 9 (3rd from) maths....

[Maha]

If the answer is....
''Infatuation Cunt''
What is the question?

[huff3r]

yes correct but the whether the multiplication symbol is there or not changes the status of the 2. when its just 2(9+3) then it is part of the brackets piece of bedmas and gets done before the division.
If the multiplication symbol is in place then multiplying what's in the brackets happens after the division of 48/2
all depends how its wtitten too, but as written in the op answer=2
see like this ----:drinkup: two !

Incorrect.
Only what is INSIDE the brackets is part of the Brackets step of BEDMAS regardless of wether there is a multiplication symbol or not. Again, it is implied multiplication and therefore once whats INSIDE the brackets is solved, then the equation is solved left to right.

As noted above, this is 3rd form stuff. Is KB, collectively, stupider than a 13yr old?

[pzkpfw]

Right I've had my weetbix and the alcohol is mostly out of my system and I still cannot see how you get 288.

I interpret equation written as thus:
48
-----------
2(9+3)
Following the rules of BEDMAS
1. Solve inside the brackets 9+3 =12 which makes equation 48/2(12)
2. Expand the brackets 2x12=24 which now makes 48/24
3. Solved = 2

Cross mutipication of fractions still comes up as 2 when solving inside brackets first:
48 12
___ x ___ = 2
2 1

It is my thought that if it is done as so that 24 x 12= 288 the brackets are now being expanded last?

It's your step 2 that's odd. What you call "expanding the brackets" has nothing to do with the "B" of "BEDMAS". It's a multiplication (i.e. "2x(9+3)"), so has no higher priority than division, so there's no reason to do "2x(9+3)" before "48/2".




48/2(9+3) = 48/2x(9+3)
^^^^^ Brackets
= 48/2x12
^^^^ Multiplication/Division (left)

= 24x12
^^^^^ Multiplication/Division (right)

[Gremlin]

Why aren't you in bed at 2.36am, huh?
Someone on the internet is wrong


when its just 2(9+3) then it is part of the brackets piece of bedmas and gets done before the division.
Actually, this is wrong. the 2 is outside the bracket, not part of the bracket, and is on the same priority as the division.



Following the rules of BEDMAS
1. Solve inside the brackets 9+3 =12 which makes equation 48/2(12)
2. Expand the brackets 2x12=24 which now makes 48/24
3. Solved = 2
Your #2 is wrong. Another way to write #1 is 48 / 2 x 12, and its solved left to right. Therefore, #2 is 48 / 2, makes 24, then multiply by 12 (still solving left to right) which makes 288.

[marie_speeds]

Last night I was given an equation 48/2(9+3). In my head the answer was 2 but I was told I was wrong. So I plugged it into your calculator exactly as it was written and got given the answer 2. You farken bastards your calcuator is shit cause some motorcyclists told me that 2 is still not the answer. I want a farken refund for your piece of crap calculator.

Sincerely Marie

P.S I think you also need a new Research and Development team. The ones you have had for the past how many decades should obviously be put out to pasture.

[bogan]

Learn to write equations properly :bleh: Txt speak is enough of a blight on it's own, we simply cannot cope with similar ambiguity emerging in engineering and the sciences :facepalm:

[huff3r]

Last night I was given an equation 48/2(9+3). In my head the answer was 2 but I was told I was wrong. So I plugged it into your calculator exactly as it was written and got given the answer 2. You farken bastards your calcuator is shit cause some motorcyclists told me that 2 is still not the answer. I want a farken refund for your piece of crap calculator.

Sincerely Marie

P.S I think you also need a new Research and Development team. The ones you have had for the past how many decades should obviously be put out to pasture.

I think if you read your brilliant little Casios operating manual it will instruct you to enter a multiplication symbol in situations such as the one above. Cos computers aren't perfect.

But I'm guessing you never even looked at that, and chucked it out along with the packaging?

Wiki link in a previous post clears up the issue with Casio calculators, it is a well-known fault. Everyone has faults, even machines. And especially computer code, its very easy to screw things up. Perhaps they simply could not get the code to work right when they programmed it and gave up! (Sometimes even when logic dictates that coding is perfect, the computer still says no. A fact which frustrates many software developers!)

[marie_speeds]

I think if you read your brilliant little Casios operating manual it will instruct you to enter a multiplication symbol in situations such as the one above. Cos computers aren't perfect.

But I'm guessing you never even looked at that, and chucked it out along with the packaging?

Wiki link in a previous post clears up the issue with Casio calculators, it is a well-known fault. Everyone has faults, even machines. And especially computer code, its very easy to screw things up. Perhaps they simply could not get the code to work right when they programmed it and gave up! (Sometimes even when logic dictates that coding is perfect, the computer still says no. A fact which frustrates many software developers!)

I know how to use most buttons on it....I don't even use pythagoras or trig anymore I lazily use the POL( button that they kindly provided to find hypoteneuse and angle.... if it is there then why not use it :yes:

I still want a refund!

[YellowDog]

I can't believe that we are still on this one :lol:

The Google answer of 288 is based upon a different interpretation of the question.

288 is correct for the Google misinterpreted question.

2 is the correct answer to the actual question :yes:

[wysper]

What a cool question.

I am going with 288 using the rules as I understand them.

If you want the answer 2 I believe you need another set of brackets.

[YellowDog]

What a cool question.

I am going with 288 using the rules as I understand them.

If you want the answer 2 I believe you need another set of brackets.

Well you understand them incorrectly :rofl:

Check out this thread to see if you change your mind:

http://michiganstate.247sports.com/Board/93/48293--1787217/3

[pzkpfw]

Well you understand them incorrectly :rofl:

Check out this thread to see if you change your mind:

http://michiganstate.247sports.com/Board/93/48293--1787217/3

Hell no. Only got as far as the first page though, the people arguing for 2 were the same as those in this thread. The guy using "The distributive property of multiplication" was using a little more knowledge than some, but totally misapplying it.

If you think some post in that long thread proves the case for 2, please post a link to that actual post.

[huff3r]

I can't believe that we are still on this one :lol:

The Google answer of 288 is based upon a different interpretation of the question.

288 is correct for the Google misinterpreted question.

2 is the correct answer to the actual question :yes:

There is only one way to interpret that question, as it is written. The answer is 288.

It is you who is misinterpreting, as you somehoew connect the 2 as part of the brackets, when it is clearly OUTSIDE of the brackets.

Why is INSIDE and OUTSIDE so hard to get? It's pretty simple really.

Brackets step of BEDMAS means solve whats INSIDE the brackets.

The only time when you would multiply the 2 beforehand is if it was an algebraic equation, and you were asked to SIMPLIFY not SOLVE, in which case, correctly rearranged, it would become:

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

Which would then be solved as:
48/2 = 24
24* 9 = 216
24* 3 = 72
72 + 216 = 288

[MisterD]

There is only one way to interpret that question, as it is written. The answer is 288.

Right to the first bit and wrong to the second. The answer is clearly 2



It is you who is misinterpreting, as you somehoew connect the 2 as part of the brackets, when it is clearly OUTSIDE of the brackets.

Why is INSIDE and OUTSIDE so hard to get? It's pretty simple really.

Brackets step of BEDMAS means solve whats INSIDE the brackets.

The only time when you would multiply the 2 beforehand is if it was an algebraic equation, and you were asked to SIMPLIFY not SOLVE, in which case, correctly rearranged, it would become:

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

Which would then be solved as:
48/2 = 24
24* 9 = 216
24* 3 = 72
72 + 216 = 288

BODMAS is a complete f-ing red herring, it a question about converting two lines of mathematics into one line of text. The question simply is whether the (9+3) is on the top or bottom of the fraction.

For my money it's simple logic that the "/" separates numerator and denominator, so clearly it's part of the denominator and on the bottom hence the answer is 2. To get your result it would need to have been written as 48(9+3)/2

[pzkpfw]

BODMAS is a complete f-ing red herring, it a question about converting two lines of mathematics into one line of text. The question simply is whether the (9+3) is on the top or bottom of the fraction.

For my money it's simple logic that the "/" separates numerator and denominator, so clearly it's part of the denominator and on the bottom hence the answer is 2. To get your result it would need to have been written as 48(9+3)/2

You can't use "logic" that way, you need to use the rules of mathematics.

By your logic, one could also say the (implied) multiplication between the 2 and the brackets, separates the two factors of the equation.

48/2 x (9+3), 48/2 being one factor and (9+3) being the other factor.

Why is your division taking precedence over that multiplication?

That's the crux, why is is being assumed that "2x(9+3)" is all on the "bottom" of the fraction? There's not yet been a convincing case for that, so the rule of left-to-right applies (on the equally "important" multiplication and division).

[MisterD]

Why is your division taking precedence over that multiplication?

That's the crux, why is is being assumed that "2x(9+3)" is all on the "bottom" of the fraction? There's not yet been a convincing case for that, so the rule of left-to-right applies (on the equally "important" multiplication and division).

For the very simple reason that it's what splits the calculation into two lines...any other interpretation requires you to dodge between top and bottom of the faction in the middle of the line.

If want to render a fraction into a single line of text then it's the only reasonable way to do it.

[pzkpfw]

If want to render a fraction into a single line of text then it's the only reasonable way to do it.

No. You'd use brackets.

Like: 48/(2x(9+3))


Without those brackets, the standard practice is to read left to right (within operators of equal priority).

[Oblivion]

I can't believe that with all this arguing, the result is still near 50/50. I wonder what it would be like if we had at least 2000 people joining in on this :yes:

[sil3nt]

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=What+is+the+answer+to+48%2F2(9%2B3)%3F&meta=&aq=f&oq=

[Bald Eagle]

Poll is missing option 3 = who gives a damn

[huff3r]

For the very simple reason that it's what splits the calculation into two lines...any other interpretation requires you to dodge between top and bottom of the faction in the middle of the line.

If want to render a fraction into a single line of text then it's the only reasonable way to do it.

:facepalm:

Nope. It's called an improper fraction. The fraction 48/2 is seperate to the brackets, unless another set of brackets is added to include it. The (9+3) is neither numerator, nor denominator but rather a seperate entity being multiplied by the original fraction.

For example 1/2(3) is a way of writing 1/2 X 3
Which is 1.5.

Whereas 1/(2x3) is how you would write it if 2x3 was the denominator, and then your answer would be 1/6.

The issue here is that you are not interpreting the standardised rules for entering equations on one line. This is why, as I have mentioned before, having the correct brackets in the correct place is emphasised quite strongly in both school and university mathematics, especially when dealing with fractions and improper fractions etc.

[YellowDog]

I can't believe that with all this arguing, the result is still near 50/50. I wonder what it would be like if we had at least 2000 people joining in on this :yes:

KB has a 50% dumb arse ratio :rofl:
(the ones who didn't say 2)

[huff3r]

KB has a 50% dumb arse ratio :rofl:
(the ones who didn't say 2)

50% of KB are not smarter than a 3rd former. Because 3rd form is when you learn all about this, and how the answer is 288. So 50% of KB needs to go back to primary!

[huff3r]

Multi-line equation drawn correctly, re-arranged according to the rules of Order of Operations, and the rules of algebra and fractions:

48/2(9+3) is sourced from....

236265

[bogan]

actually, if you aren't halfassing it, the single line equivalent would be (48/2)(9+3). Likewise for the inferior 50% of interpretations :bleh: (can't be assed drawing this) would be 48/(2(9+3)).

Matlab had it right all along I'm afraid.

[sil3nt]

Poll is missing option 3 = who gives a damnNah its there its located top right hand side of your screen :rolleyes:

[MisterD]

Multi-line equation drawn correctly, re-arranged according to the rules of Order of Operations, and the rules of algebra and fractions:

Not buying.

[huff3r]

Not buying.

Then go back to college. I do maths regularly, and generally with equations more complex than that. A mistake like that made by a pilot, or an engineer could kill people.

I guess thats why engineers have to do so much calculus. It scares me though that the calculator gets it wrong, considering everybodys dependence on them these days.

[pzkpfw]

I guess thats why engineers have to do so much calculus. It scares me though that the calculator gets it wrong, considering everybodys dependence on them these days.

Rather than "wrong" I'd see it more as a shortcut that you'd better be aware of. The calculators that do it, do it as a "feature".

When the full equation is entered: 48/2x(9+3) these calculators get the correct answer *.

(Other calculators don't allow the "shortcut" at all).

(* that one, 48/2x(9+3) = 288, blows away the arguement of those who say that "logically" all that stuff to the right of the slash is under the division line. According to them, this should still work out as 48/(2x(9+3)) which it clearly doesn't.)

[Gremlin]

Well, at least I have been off riding, while you lot have continued arguing :scooter:

[HenryDorsetCase]

iTS 2 INNIT?

[MD]

iTS 2 INNIT?

Yes, Yes, it is Two. Unless you don't understand how to read from left to right.

[pzkpfw]

Yes, Yes, it is Two. Unless you don't understand how to read from left to right.

understanding left then right is what makes it 288.

[marie_speeds]

Multi-line equation drawn correctly, re-arranged according to the rules of Order of Operations, and the rules of algebra and fractions:

48/2(9+3) is sourced from....

236265

Written like that changes things......

[MD]

Written like that changes things......

Exactly. He has changed the equation to suit 'the other' answer, by removing
the (9+3) part from below the divide by line and thereby making it a standalone instruction.

[schrodingers cat]

124 and climbing

http://ouramericangeneration.org/blog/wp-content/themes/vigilance/images/top-banner/Official-Seal-of-Awesome.jpg

[marie_speeds]

50% of KB are not smarter than a 3rd former. Because 3rd form is when you learn all about this, and how the answer is 288. So 50% of KB needs to go back to primary!

Oh yeah the NCEA system is infallable. Give students several attempts to deem themselves competent....use test papers as revision papers and then give them back that same paper to "test" them. LOL. To be competent in a Unit Standard 50% will do...:whistle: And the govt now pretending that it works by forcing all Tertiary Institutes in NZ to embed Numeracy and Literacy into all courses to cover up the fact that the tertiary institutes are complaining about the level of students that regulations force them to enrol since NCEA came into effect...... the answer to the question as it is written in the OP is 2.....2(9+3) is the denominator when it is written like that. Solve inside the bracket, expand the bracket.... at least that was what I was taught. That makes the 2 outside of the bracket the co-efficient of the brackets and part of the denominator. But just to make really bloody sure tomorrow I will ask Wayne ex DSIR and Ag-research electronics research division and Dr. Nigel whizz kid extrodanaire who is currently involved in microprocessor development programmed using ladder logic with some Italian Company. One of them will tell me :bleh:

[bogan]

Exactly. He has changed the equation to suit 'the other' answer, by removing
the (9+3) part from below the divide by line and thereby making it a standalone instruction.

what if it was 2x(9+3) then, is the 9+3 bit still below the line?

also, surely it should be obvious to everyone by now that this notation is shorthand, and only correctly decipherable to the one who wrote it. I've been know to have trouble understanding my own shorthand, let-alone anyone elses :rolleyes:

[Latte]

Exactly. He has changed the equation to suit 'the other' answer, by removing
the (9+3) part from below the divide by line and thereby making it a standalone instruction.

I think that's where the issue is, as there's no "classic" division symbol the "/" is used. And in most cases it won't affect things. This has been written to specifically divide people as it's really ambiguous.

If someone can draw a piccy like huffer did of the original equation, but with a "division" symbol instead of the "/" then would you interpret it the same.

[marie_speeds]

I think that's where the issue is, as there's no "classic" division symbol the "/" is used. And in most cases it won't affect things. This has been written to specifically divide people as it's really ambiguous.

If someone can draw a piccy like huffer did of the original equation, but with a "division" symbol instead of the "/" then would you interpret it the same.

What he drew and what was in the OP are 2 different equations.....

[Mental Trousers]

Just saw a big argument on another forum.

Is it 288 or 2?

My maths tells me its 288.


BODMAS

B - Stands for Bracket.
O - Stands for "OF" or "Orders" (i.e. Powers and Square Roots, etc.)
D - Stands for Division.
M - Stands for Multiplication.
A - Stands for Addition.
S - Stands for Subtraction

You do the math

(haven't read the entire thread ....)

Brackets (no matter how they're being used) are highest priority. So a multiplication implied by the use of a bracket takes precedence over the explicit division.

The other thing is that the / implies everything that follows is underneath.

The answer is 2 thanks to BODMAS.

Game Over, next please.

[huff3r]

(haven't read the entire thread ....)


The other thing is that the / implies everything that follows is underneath.



Since when? So if everything that follows is underneath how does one write a more complex equation with multiple divisions and or fractions. By your reckoning if i was to write:

1/2+1/2

Then I would have a 3 line fraction.... and the answer would be 1/6, instead of being 1...

[huff3r]

Written like that changes things......

That is exactly the same as the original equation, due to the lack of brackets surrounding the 2(9+3). :facepalm:

[marie_speeds]

That is exactly the same as the original equation, due to the lack of brackets surrounding the 2(9+3). :facepalm:

Actually you're right it is the same equation and the answer is still 2. Cross multipication of fractions i.e 48 over 2 multiplied by 12 over one still makes the answer 2. Thanks for clarifying that....

[bogan]

Actually you're right it is the same equation and the answer is still 2. Cross multipication of fractions i.e 48 over 2 multiplied by 12 over one still makes the answer 2. Thanks for clarifying that....

oh dear :facepalm:

this thread had potential when terminators and cylons were being discussed :oi-grr:

[huff3r]

Actually you're right it is the same equation and the answer is still 2. Cross multipication of fractions i.e 48 over 2 multiplied by 12 over one still makes the answer 2. Thanks for clarifying that....

Umm... you cant cross multiply like that. 12 over 1 = 12, so 48/2 x 12/1 equals 48/2 x 12 still....

Cross multiplying is for simplifying algebraic equations where one fraction = another. Not multiplied by another. Equals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_multiply

Also, while im there:

The standard order of operations, or precedence, is expressed in the following chart.

terms inside brackets
exponents and roots
multiplication and division
addition and subtraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Can it be an more OBVIOUS?

[marie_speeds]

Umm... you cant cross multiply like that. 12 over 1 = 12, so 48/2 x 12/1 equals 48/2 x 12 still....

Cross multiplying is for simplifying algebraic equations where one fraction = another. Not multiplied by another. Equals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_multiply

Also, while im there:

The standard order of operations, or precedence, is expressed in the following chart.

terms inside brackets
exponents and roots
multiplication and division
addition and subtraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Can it be an more OBVIOUS?

And the 2( becomes an exponent of the bracket i.e expand the bracket. You are now changing the rules to suit your answer by implying 2x( when that is not how the original equation is written. The original equation in OP shows that 2(9+3) is the entire denominator. So to suit your change of rules I have now implied with the drawn form that was produced and from the fact that 48/2 is a fraction as implied earlier in the thread that cross mutiplication may be used where 2 fractions have different denominators....basic year form 1 maths

But as stated earlier I will ask 2 friends tomorrow :yes: one has a Phd in Electronic Engineering and the other has a Masters and is working on a Phd in Electronic Engineering. If they can't give me the answer then DSIR are doomed and Bluebird better redesign their entire production line quick smart. Oh hang on yeah sorry one of them has just had a paper on microwave technology measuring water content of logs for milling accepted for a conference in the States and an international journal so he may be too busy to look at the equation as it was written in OP. :laugh:

[pzkpfw]

And the 2( becomes an exponent of the bracket ...

What exactly do you mean by "exponent"?

[bogan]

it's shorthand notation, we could similarly argue what 'spn' means if received in a text, could be spun, spin, span, son even, it's incom-bloody-plete :bash:

<img src="http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs50/i/2009/308/3/9/Terminator_vs_Cylon___Pic_2_by_CyberDrone.jpg" width=640 />

[Latte]

What he drew and what was in the OP are 2 different equations.....

I didn't explain it well.... what I meant was this ...

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=236412&d=1302428184

Do you still interpret the answer as 2?

[DMNTD]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hzFC1ZShW98" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Latte]

Oh, bikes..... that's what this forum is for.. forget sometimes.

[Mental Trousers]

Since when? So if everything that follows is underneath how does one write a more complex equation with multiple divisions and or fractions. By your reckoning if i was to write:

1/2+1/2

Then I would have a 3 line fraction.... and the answer would be 1/6, instead of being 1...

since a / doesn't come under a / ..... and writing complex equations usually uses brackets to sort that out.

[huff3r]

since a / doesn't come under a / ..... and writing complex equations usually uses brackets to sort that out.

So does writing simple equations. Which is why the above equation does not include the (9+3) as the denominator, otherwise there would be an extra set of brackets to specifically include it.

And as for "becomes an exponent of the bracket"...
No such thing, and if it were an exponent then the answer would be completely different, and itd be written to the right of the brackets in the format ^2.

The 2 is not attached to the brackets, it is merely lazy shorthand omitting the multiplication symbol.

As for it being shorthand, so open for interpretation. Also incorrect. It is a "shilling fraction" and therefore there are set rules as to how to write the fraction and the equation.

Oh and lastly, it is possible to have a fraction on top or underneath a fraction. It is called a Commplex Fraction. So you're argument that a / doesnt come under a / is invalid.

[MisterD]

Then go back to college. I do maths regularly

Woo-hoo, and I'm a 40 yr old bloke with a degree in something called "physics" , which is just as irrelevant.

The simple, and pertinent, fact is that the intuitive reading of the "equation" ( quotes because there's no actual equals sign in there) puts everything on each side of the '/' on separate lines. It's a neat trick, but basically the mathematical equivalent of an optical illusion.

[huff3r]

Woo-hoo, and I'm a 40 yr old bloke with a degree in something called "physics" , which is just as irrelevant.

The simple, and pertinent, fact is that the intuitive reading of the "equation" ( quotes because there's no actual equals sign in there) puts everything on each side of the '/' on separate lines. It's a neat trick, but basically the mathematical equivalent of an optical illusion.

Yup it is an illusion, because the standard and well-practised interpretation of an equation, or expression in this case, is to seperate it into terms. And each "operation" applies only to the terms directly beside it.

E.g 1+2, the + applies only to the one and two. So 48/2 the / applies only to the 48 and the 2, otherwise brackets are required to differentiate.

But thats the last I'm arguing, if people want to go through life not understanding the basics of mathematical equations, and order of operations then they are welcome too.


Also I worry about a physics major who struggles with the shorthand writing of single line equations. Especially since so many physics equations involve both fractions, and single terms, division and multiplication and complex algebra.

[Latte]

Burnout

Oh yeah, you're subliminal messages in the other video's arent that subtle :D

[Oblivion]

Oh yeah, you're subliminal messages in the other video's arent that subtle :D

Infact, they're so blatantly obvious, that they're subtle :yes:

[marie_speeds]

So does writing simple equations. Which is why the above equation does not include the (9+3) as the denominator, otherwise there would be an extra set of brackets to specifically include it.

And as for "becomes an exponent of the bracket"...
No such thing, and if it were an exponent then the answer would be completely different, and itd be written to the right of the brackets in the format ^2.

The 2 is not attached to the brackets, it is merely lazy shorthand omitting the multiplication symbol.

As for it being shorthand, so open for interpretation. Also incorrect. It is a "shilling fraction" and therefore there are set rules as to how to write the fraction and the equation.

Oh and lastly, it is possible to have a fraction on top or underneath a fraction. It is called a Commplex Fraction. So you're argument that a / doesnt come under a / is invalid.


Yup it is an illusion, because the standard and well-practised interpretation of an equation, or expression in this case, is to seperate it into terms. And each "operation" applies only to the terms directly beside it.

E.g 1+2, the + applies only to the one and two. So 48/2 the / applies only to the 48 and the 2, otherwise brackets are required to differentiate.

But thats the last I'm arguing, if people want to go through life not understanding the basics of mathematical equations, and order of operations then they are welcome too.


Also I worry about a physics major who struggles with the shorthand writing of single line equations. Especially since so many physics equations involve both fractions, and single terms, division and multiplication and complex algebra.

Xc=1/2pifC (written as a single line short hand equation just like op)

where f=50 hertz and C=80micro Farads
So Xc=?

Get it wrong and I suggest you change majors....LOL....Get it right and it means that you are using double standards when solving single line short hand equations to justify your answer by inserting brackets where none is shown LOL

[MisterD]

Xc=1/2piFC

Nicely done.

[Gubb]

Have we got a definitive answer yet?

[MisterD]

Have we got a definitive answer yet?

Yep...it's either two black faces or a white candlestick

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.switched.com/media/2008/09/facevase.jpg

[Indiana_Jones]

2

-Indy

[bogan]

Have we got a definitive answer yet?

The definitive answer, is it's inconclusive. Anyone who writes with such ambiguity is either doing it wrong, or using personal shorthand.

[marie_speeds]

The definitive answer, is it's inconclusive. Anyone who writes with such ambiguity is either doing it wrong, or using personal shorthand.

Oh dear that was a bit of a side step when you were so adamant that the answer is 288.....and anyone who got 2 were wrong, now it is ambiguous?:facepalm: answer my question as below...to prove all your points.....simple first year Uni engineering so it should be simple


Xc=1/2pifC (written as a single line short hand equation just like op)

where f=50 hertz and C=80micro Farads
So Xc=?

Get it wrong and I suggest you change majors....LOL....Get it right and it means that you are using double standards when solving single line short hand equations to justify your answer by inserting brackets where none is shown LOL

It is only a very gentle squeezing.....:lol:

[bogan]

Side step? no, just my earlier interpretation was wrong.

Again, it's up to interpretation, in your example, people will write that in shorthand and being a commonly known equation it will be interpreted correctly. Just as kenitic energy will go the other way Ek=1/2mvv

[marie_speeds]

Side step? no, just my earlier interpretation was wrong.

Again, it's up to interpretation, in your example, people will write that in shorthand and being a commonly known equation it will be interpreted correctly. Just as kenitic energy will go the other way Ek=1/2mvv

Bwahahahahaha.... :killingme what's the answer to my equation? Simple first year uni engineering.... Don't tell me that you are going to use implied brackets to solve it :gob:

[bogan]

Bwahahahahaha.... :killingme what's the answer to my equation? Simple first year uni engineering.... Don't tell me that you are going to use implied brackets to solve it :gob:

actually I will use the original equation to solve it, in which the brackets are explicitly defined. After all, that is what the shorthand version refers to.

Solve the kinetic energy equation in your implied brackets way, and you'll fail a 7th form physics test.

[marie_speeds]

actually I will use the original equation to solve it, in which the brackets are explicitly defined. After all, that is what the shorthand version refers to.

Solve the kinetic energy equation in your implied brackets way, and you'll fail a 7th form physics test.

I have not defined brackets and have written it in shorthand as per the layout of the OP..... nor does any engineering text book show the formula I have stated with explicitly defined brackets.... if you use brackets to solve my equation then sorry but that would now be a blatant double standard of everything that has been argued to justify the answer as 288.

[Whynot]

This thread is hard core

[bogan]

I have not defined brackets and have written it in shorthand as per the layout of the OP..... nor does any engineering text book show the formula I have stated with explicitly defined brackets.... if you use brackets to solve my equation then sorry but that would now be a blatant double standard of everything that has been argued to justify the answer as 288.

Using a double line formula with multiple symbols on the bottom is explicitly defining brackets, because any correct derivation from a two line to single line equation would add them to show that the bottom line is to be processed first; you know, to save a bit of confusion. Got an answer to the kinetic energy equation yet?

[bogan]

This thread is hard core

But still heaps easier than the scottish thread!

[MisterD]

Got an answer to the kinetic energy equation yet?

I know the formula for kinetic energy and I still read what you've written as the reciprocal of 2mvv...

The intuitive response is always to (a) put everything separated by the '/' onto separate lines and (b) group everything together when multiplication is implied by ommitting the 'x'.

A small sample trial (I tried it on me) shows a less clear result if the '/' is replaced by '÷'.

[marie_speeds]

Using a double line formula with multiple symbols on the bottom is explicitly defining brackets, because any correct derivation from a two line to single line equation would add them to show that the bottom line is to be processed first; you know, to save a bit of confusion. equation yet?


"sigh".... stop trying to sidestep the issue with your justifications and answer the equation..... I have not explicity defined brackets and nor does any engineering text book on planet earth. I have written it in shorthand as per op. First year engineering so should be simple......

P.S I didn't do 7th form physics. And have given an equation based on same format as OP, so use the same rules you applied to OP equation and solve it.....

[bogan]

I know the formula for kinetic energy and I still read what you've written as the reciprocal of 2mvv...


exactly, peoples interpretations of shorthand are different, i read the Xc as 1/2 multiplied by whatever is after it, but know the equation so use the proper one.



The intuitive response is always to (a) put everything separated by the '/' onto separate lines and (b) group everything together when multiplication is implied by ommitting the 'x'.


Poll results show that is the intuitive response for only 46.91% of participants, this is why using the proper bracketry in either case is useful, or just use words equation writer.

[bogan]

"sigh".... stop trying to sidestep the issue with your justifications and answer the equation..... I have not explicity defined brackets and nor does any engineering text book on planet earth. I have written it in shorthand as per op. First year engineering so should be simple......

P.S I didn't do 7th form physics. And have given an equation based on same format as OP, so use the same rules you applied to OP equation and solve it.....

ok, if i didn't know the equation I would just process it left to right, as per bodmas without 'implicit brackets', which I can't find reference to in any mathematical texts, got a link to that?

[MisterD]

Poll results show that is the intuitive response for only 46.91% of participants,

Er no. Poll results show no such thing...I'd venture to suggest that the whole point of how this argument works is the conflict between intuitive and counter-intuitive application of "BODMAS" and a L-R reading.

[bogan]

Er no. Poll results show no such thing...I'd venture to suggest that the whole point of how this argument works is the conflict between intuitive and counter-intuitive application of "BODMAS" and a L-R reading.

I made the assumption that everyone answered with their intuitive interpretation, just because it isn't intuitive for you, doesn't mean it can't be intuitive for others. Shit this is getting more like the scottish thread now :blink:

[BoristheBiter]

But still heaps easier than the scottish thread!

But twice as boring.

[marie_speeds]

ok, if i didn't know the equation I would just process it left to right, as per bodmas without 'implicit brackets', which I can't find reference to in any mathematical texts, got a link to that?

What has struck me as funny about this thread is the fact that you guys depend so heavily on wiki and other links to justify your responses. Where as those of us erm older generation types who left school ages ago have relied only on what we have learnt all those years ago. I am currently in the process of writing my master's thesis, if I handed in a draft to my supervisor with a Wiki link reference to justify my research, no doubt I would be bitch slapped, made to eat my draft and then promptly kicked out of the office and told never to come back. No link....use your head same rules as applied to OP.

[MisterD]

I made the assumption that everyone answered with their intuitive interpretation, just because it isn't intuitive for you, doesn't mean it can't be intuitive for others. Shit this is getting more like the scottish thread now :blink:

Assumption is what....?

Anyhoo, over at Physics Forums answer '2' is winning.

[bogan]

What has struck me as funny about this thread is the fact that you guys depend so heavily on wiki and other links to justify your responses. Where as those of us erm older generation types who left school ages ago have relied only on what we have learnt all those years ago. I am currently in the process of writing my master's thesis, if I handed in a draft to my supervisor with a Wiki link reference to justify my research, no doubt I would be bitch slapped, made to eat my draft and then promptly kicked out of the office and told never to come back. No link....use your head same rules as applied to OP.

Wiki is useful to clarify what you know, I too am writing thesis, (which is fucking boring so I find myself here instead) and would not use it as a reference, but when I can't remember a certain equation or need an algorithm template or whatever, wiki is a nice standardized generally reliable place to get it, unlike some old fogeys memory :bleh:

However the point of providing references in any work, is to show you know the subject matter, and to back up your assertions, try submitting you thesis and telling them you just used you head instead of referencing things ;)

So again, if you have any link to show your interpretation is more than just your interpretation :wait:

I mean c'mon, maths is a fairly exact science, if an equation can give two different answers with a 50/50 split depending on the interpretation, it has to be the equation writer that is wrong? surely everyone can see that :facepalm:


Assumption is what....?

required when there is ambiguity :bleh:

[pzkpfw]

Xc=1/2pifC (written as a single line short hand equation just like op)

where f=50 hertz and C=80micro Farads
So Xc=?

Get it wrong and I suggest you change majors....LOL....Get it right and it means that you are using double standards when solving single line short hand equations to justify your answer by inserting brackets where none is shown LOL

Nah, that's still just nasty shorthand, that only "works" if you already know what the formula for Capacitive Reactance is.

Speaking of "double standards", earlier in this thread you were happy that your calculator gave you the answer you expected for the original equation.

What exactly would you type into your calculator (or Excel, or ...) to get the correct answer to Xc?

[marie_speeds]

Nah, that's still just nasty shorthand, that only "works" if you already know what the formula for Capacitive Reactance is.

Speaking of "double standards", earlier in this thread you were happy that your calculator gave you the answer you expected for the original equation.

What exactly would you type into your calculator (or Excel, or ...) to get the correct answer to Xc?


Very early in my responses to thread I stated 2 as done in my head, stated that on calculator I also got 2 using 48/(2(9+3)) and got 2 using 48/2(9+3). I also stated in thread that the entire denominator of original was 2(9+3). But was explicity told no no no as I am now implying brackets that aren't there. So exactly what double standard are you referring to? When I have maintained my same position from the start. Others of course have started drawing very cute pictures which show a change in the equation to justify their answers and will now not answer my equation using the exact same method they used to solve thread OP, so I say go ahead answer the question without implied brackets, both equations are written in the same format so it should be easy....

[BoristheBiter]

Very early in my responses to thread I stated 2 as done in my head, stated that on calculator I also got 2 using 48/(2(9+3)) and got 2 using 48/2(9+3). I also stated in thread that the entire denominator of original was 2(9+3). But was explicity told no no no as I am now implying brackets that aren't there. So exactly what double standard are you referring to? When I have maintained my same position from the start. Others of course have started drawing very cute pictures which show a change in the equation to justify their answers and will now not answer my equation using the exact same method they used to solve thread OP, so I say go ahead answer the question without implied brackets, both equations are written in the same format so it should be easy....

I think this is where the use of the / symbol has led to ambiguity in this equation.
But whether it is a fraction or division, 2(9+3) is a complete equation so therefore should be completed first regardless of extra brackets (that aren't needed) otherwise it would be written 48/2*(9+3).

[pzkpfw]

Very early in my responses to thread I stated 2 as done in my head, stated that on calculator I also got 2 using 48/(2(9+3)) and got 2 using 48/2(9+3). I also stated in thread that the entire denominator of original was 2(9+3). But was explicity told no no no as I am now implying brackets that aren't there. So exactly what double standard are you referring to? When I have maintained my same position from the start. Others of course have started drawing very cute pictures which show a change in the equation to justify their answers and will now not answer my equation using the exact same method they used to solve thread OP, so I say go ahead answer the question without implied brackets, both equations are written in the same format so it should be easy....

Just work out the answer to your Reactive Capacitance question, using your calculator. Then tell us how you did it.

[Bald Eagle]

12 pages of thread - best laugh I've had in ages.

[marie_speeds]

Just work out the answer to your Reactive Capacitance question, using your calculator. Then tell us how you did it.

Mods can we get a "sigh" smiley please?

It is capacitive reactance and the answer is 39.79 ohms (2d.p) using wait for........

implied brackets which I have been steadfastly told by you and others does not exist and that my use of it in the the OP equation was incorrect mathematics....
So solving my problem your way without implied brackets 1/2 multiplied by pifC is 6.2832...and that answer sorry to say would be a big fat fail in engineering maths class....

[Jantar]

Its quite simple really, just look at the way it was written.

48/2(9+3) is not the same as 48(9+3)/2

Obviously, in this case, everything after / is the demominator, and so the answer is 2.

[Bald Eagle]

Its quite simple really, just look at the way it was written.

24/2(9+3) is not the same as 24(9+3)/2

Obviously, in this case, everything after / is the demominator, and so the answer is 2.

Are you saying in long hand 24 divided by 2 times (12) is 2

I thought 24 divivded by 24 was 1 . :rofl: :facepalm:

.... sorry couldn't resist

[pzkpfw]

Mods can we get a "sigh" smiley please?

It is capacitive reactance and the answer is 39.79 ohms (2d.p) using wait for........

implied brackets which I have been steadfastly told by you and others does not exist and that my use of it in the the OP equation was incorrect mathematics....
So solving my problem your way without implied brackets 1/2 multiplied by pifC is 6.2832...and that answer sorry to say would be a big fat fail in engineering maths class....

Right, my main point in that question was just to clarify that yes, you do need to add those "implied" brackets to get the correct answer.

i.e. you need to type it into your calculator as 1 / ( ... ), and you only know you need to do that, by already knowing the correct formula.

The contradiction I referred to was: a. you were happy to type 48/2(9+3) as written into your calculator and get the answer you expected; but if you type your new formula into a calculator as written you'll get an answer you consider wrong. Isn't that a "double standard"?

The formula as presented by you intially is sloppy, and requires use of an assumption that is not supported by standard mathematics. None of your posts in this thread have provided a valid standard mathematical reason to assume those "implied brackets".


(test, see if Latex link will work here:

Xc=1/2piFC http://www.codecogs.com/eq.latex?\Xc={\frac 1 2}\pi FC

Xc=1/(2piFC) http://www.codecogs.com/eq.latex?\Xc={1\over{2\pi fC}}


OK, dunno why the latex link is so awful (e.g. it's not showing the division line), but it shows the right overall format.
)



Part 2: if you were told X = 1/2 + 3, what would you say X is?

[Jantar]

Are you saying in long hand 24 divided by 2 times (12) is 2

I thought 24 divivded by 24 was 1 . :rofl: :facepalm:

.... sorry couldn't resist

Yep, I failed. Corrected now.

[BoristheBiter]

Right, my main point in that question was just to clarify that yes, you do need to add those "implied" brackets to get the correct answer.

i.e. you need to type it into your calculator as 1 / ( ... ), and you only know you need to do that, by already knowing the correct formula.

The contradiction I referred to was: a. you were happy to type 48/2(9+3) as written into your calculator and get the answer you expected; but if you type your new formula into a calculator as written you'll get an answer you consider wrong. Isn't that a "double standard"?

The formula as presented by you intially is sloppy, and requires use of an assumption that is not supported by standard mathematics. None of your posts in this thread have provided a valid standard mathematical reason to assume those "implied brackets".


(test, see if Latex link will work here:

Xc=1/2piFC http://www.codecogs.com/eq.latex?\Xc={\frac 1 2}\pi FC

Xc=1/(2piFC) http://www.codecogs.com/eq.latex?\Xc={1\over{2\pi fC}}


OK, dunno why the latex link is so awful (e.g. it's not showing the division line), but it shows the right overall format.
)



Part 2: if you were told X = 1/2 + 3, what would you say X is?

easy 3.5


No matter how you say it 2(9+3) is to be completed as a complete equation
If you don't allow for implied brackets then how do you know it's 2*(9+3) as the multiplication is implied also?

[Usarka]

Remove all assumptions except the absolute necessary and then go for the most likely.

Question? What is the / supposed to represent, a solidus or a ÷?

Assumption: Computer users use the / symbol in place of a ÷ and it is reasonable for normal people to understand this. Valid.

Assumption: People write complex mathematically forumlae on a single line and it's reasonable for normal people to interpret the / accurately. Retarded.

Conclusion: The answer is 288 or the formula is written poorly and the person who wrote it should get an F regardless of the answer.

[bogan]

No matter how you say it 2(9+3) is to be completed as a complete equation
If you don't allow for implied brackets then how do you know it's 2*(9+3) as the multiplication is implied also?

Multiplication is always implied when a number is used as a coefficient. To say it must be done first as a 'complete equation' is to imply brackets.

Maybe the shorthand changes depending on a persons use of such things, for example I do a lot of programming, which is done in single lines obviously, and everything following the / is absofuckinglutely not the denominator. Is why I put brackets around the whole denominator every time, and I also explicitly put the implied * between a coefficient and bracketed term. I mean, you wouldn't want my programs crapping out and failing before they become skynet would you?

[marie_speeds]

Right, my main point in that question was just to clarify that yes, you do need to add those "implied" brackets to get the correct answer.

i.e. you need to type it into your calculator as 1 / ( ... ), and you only know you need to do that, by already knowing the correct formula.

The contradiction I referred to was: a. you were happy to type 48/2(9+3) as written into your calculator and get the answer you expected; but if you type your new formula into a calculator as written you'll get an answer you consider wrong. Isn't that a "double standard"?

The formula as presented by you intially is sloppy, and requires use of an assumption that is not supported by standard mathematics. None of your posts in this thread have provided a valid standard mathematical reason to assume those "implied brackets".


(test, see if Latex link will work here:

Xc=1/2piFC = http://www.codecogs.com/eq.latex?\Xc={\frac 1 2}\pi FC

Xc=1/(2piFC) = http://www.codecogs.com/eq.latex?\Xc={1\over{2\pi fC}}

)

And none of your justifications have supported a reasoning to suggest that there were no implied brackets in the OP Equation as it was written. So now having written an equation set out exactly in the same format as the OP Equation and using my method of implied brackets (which you and others have steadfastly told me is wrong) my equation is "sloppy" :killingme

In engineering class you'd have to be a donkey's arse to solve it using your way of no implied brackets i.e 1/2 multiplied by pifC :lol:


The correct answer to this thread is 2 given the way the op equation has been written in this thread. Using :gob: implied brackets, just as the answer to my equation is 39.79 (2 d.p) using :gob: implied brackets, as there is no other way it could be done. Using your way of no implied brackets on my equation based on the way I have written it would result in a wrong answer.
Both equations were written exactly the same way, and both had values to be entered and calculated, so it is irrelevant if one knows what Xc stands for or not. The fact is that your method of solving can now not be applied to my equation. However if you now want to post pictures and manipulate both equations to suit your answer then please feel free to do so :sunny:

[pzkpfw]

Nah, I'll stop there. Your use of emoticons trumps any logic and actual math...

[marie_speeds]

Oh no I have a meeting to go to....however will I get through it wondering just how these guys are now going to change their arguments or twist the equations to suit themselves......

[bogan]

And none of your justifications have supported a reasoning to suggest that there were no implied brackets in the OP Equation as it was written. So now having written an equation set out exactly in the same format as the OP Equation and using my method of implied brackets (which you and others have steadfastly told me is wrong) my equation is "sloppy" :killingme

In engineering class you'd have to be a donkey's arse to solve it using your way of no implied brackets i.e 1/2 multiplied by pifC :lol:


The correct answer to this thread is 2 given the way the op equation has been written in this thread. Using :gob: implied brackets, just as the answer to my equation is 39.79 (2 d.p) using :gob: implied brackets, as there is no other way it could be done. Using your way of no implied brackets on my equation based on the way I have written it would result in a wrong answer.
Both equations were written exactly the same way, and both had values to be entered and calculated, so it is irrelevant if one knows what Xc stands for or not. The fact is that your method of solving can now not be applied to my equation. However if you now want to post pictures and manipulate both equations to suit your answer then please feel free to do so :sunny:

You still don't seem to comprehend that the original equation is written in a way that leaves it open to different interpretations, I even posted a well known example of 1/2mvv to show when it is required to be interpreted the other way.

I'll state it again since you may have missed it the last time:

I mean c'mon, maths is a fairly exact science, if an equation can give two different answers with a 50/50 split depending on the interpretation, it has to be the equation writer that is wrong? surely everyone can see that :facepalm:

[BoristheBiter]

Remove all assumptions except the absolute necessary and then go for the most likely.

Question? What is the / supposed to represent, a solidus or a ÷?

Assumption: Computer users use the / symbol in place of a ÷ and it is reasonable for normal people to understand this. Valid.

Assumption: People write complex mathematically forumlae on a single line and it's reasonable for normal people to interpret the / accurately. Retarded.

Conclusion: The answer is 288 or the formula is written poorly and the person who wrote it should get an F regardless of the answer.

What is complex about this? nothing
Is this basic math? yes
Conclusion: as i see you have failed basic math.

As stated 2(9+3) is complete.

[imdying]

You still don't seem to comprehend that the original equation is written in a way that leaves it open to different interpretationsDon't get married mate, you'll find out that they're all that belligerent. You might as well stop now because you've skewered her and there's no way in hell her pride will let her admit that.

[bogan]

Don't get married mate, you'll find out that they're all that belligerent. You might as well stop now because you've skewered her and there's no way in hell her pride will let her admit that.

:laugh: So it's; skewer her, then leave. Got it :yes::innocent:

[imdying]

Now you're getting it :laugh:

[avgas]

Quick question to all. have a think about it

Do brackets (in BODMAS) only relate to the contents in the brackets ;) ?

Should tell you why computers like the number 2......

[Usarka]

What is complex about this? nothing
Is this basic math? yes
Conclusion: as i see you have failed basic math.



As per bogan's comment - if you need to interpret it based on non-documented rules then it's poorly designed.

The rules taught at school are BODMAS or BEDMAS which gives 288, please show me the NZQA approved text that shows otherwise otherwise I refuse to sanction your accusation of fail.


Quick question to all. have a think about it

Do brackets (in BODMAS) only relate to the contents in the brackets ;) ?

Should tell you why computers like the number 2......
The few computers I tried it on required inserting a multiplier between the 2 and the bracket which might be where you are angling with that.

But the same computers don't do calclus. Eg type =4x+6 into excel and computer will say no.

[Jantar]

...The few computers I tried it on required inserting a multiplier between the 2 and the bracket which might be where you are angling with that.

But the same computers don't do calclus. Eg type =4x+6 into excel and computer will say no.
Correct, and hence the formula is poorly written in this case. However if we were given the origional formula with variables and the appropriate values for those variables then it would become much clearer.

As is, it is the writing of the formula that is the fail, not the mechanics in coming to a solution.

[Whynot]

Oh no I have a meeting to go to....


In engineering class you'd have to be a donkey's arse to solve it using your way of no implied brackets i.e 1/2 multiplied by pifC :lol:


I am currently in the process of writing my master's thesis, if I handed in a draft to my supervisor with a Wiki link reference to justify my research, no doubt I would be bitch slapped, made to eat my draft and then promptly kicked out of the office and told never to come back.


Mods can we get a "sigh" smiley please?

... and that answer sorry to say would be a big fat fail in engineering maths class....

you know, it almost sounds like you are trying to imply that because you are studying engineering you are better then everyone else ...

[bogan]

you know, it almost sounds like you are trying to imply that because you are studying engineering you are better then everyone else ...

as a graduate and still studying engineer, I would interpret her answers to mean she is studying something else, or at least hope so :shutup: :violin:

[BoristheBiter]

As per bogan's comment - if you need to interpret it based on non-documented rules then it's poorly designed.



Agreed, it is poorly written but if you work backwards;
288=48/2(9+3) it doesn't work (2 would = 72)
so 2 is the correct answer.

[marie_speeds]

You still don't seem to comprehend that the original equation is written in a way that leaves it open to different interpretations, I even posted a well known example of 1/2mvv to show when it is required to be interpreted the other way.

I'll state it again since you may have missed it the last time:

I mean c'mon, maths is a fairly exact science, if an equation can give two different answers with a 50/50 split depending on the interpretation, it has to be the equation writer that is wrong? surely everyone can see that :facepalm:

And as stated earlier today that is now side stepping and changing your point of view when you have been so adamant that the answer is 288 and that those of us who answered 2 were wrong....


you know, it almost sounds like you are trying to imply that because you are studying engineering you are better then everyone else ...

I am not studying engineering, but find it very worrying that those on this forum who are cannot debate constructively and prove their theorems without referring to Wikipedia for help.... :laugh: or approach a simple year 1 engineering equation that I have posted using the methods they have maintained throughhout the thread as the correct way to solve things....


as a graduate and still studying engineer, I would interpret her answers to mean she is studying something else, or at least hope so :shutup: :violin:

I am studying something else but suggest you consider a change in majors if you cannot solve the year 1 uni engineering equation that I have given using your method that you have so vehemently defended on this thread.....:facepalm: the truth is you guys are now taking petty pot shots at me because by posting my equation, written in shorthand, which apparently those of us who answered 2 don't understand and asking you to use your method of solving, which is the same method that got you the answer of 288 I have backed you into a corner because reality and maths says you cannot solve my equation without the implied use of brackets.... :laugh:

You guys are hilarious..... :laugh:

[bogan]

And as stated earlier today that is now side stepping and changing your point of view when you have been so adamant that the answer is 288 and that those of us who answered 2 were wrong....

and as stated earlier, my earlier statement was wrong. It's isn't hard to say when you're wrong, go on, give it a try ;)

My new opinion however, is right; but you'll have to go back in time if you want to argue against my old one, and I'm sorry, but only terminators can go back in time :woohoo:

[Jantar]

OK lets try a real question from year 6 (std 4 for us oldies)
The perimeter of a rectangle is twice the length plus twice the breadth. ie P = 2(L+B)
If one garden plot is 9m x 3m, how many seperate garden plots can I border off using 48m of borders?

The answer is N= 48/P

or 48/2(9+3)

I hope that 288 is correct, because then I can make a killing selling garden borders.

[Banditbandit]

FUCK .. what a lot of effort and arguing over bloody numbers ...

I dunno ...it's writen poorly

48/2X(9+3) = 288

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

There's a function missiong in the original equation ...

[MD]

..., a solidus or a ÷?

Assumption: Computer users use the / symbol in place of a ÷ and it is reasonable for normal people to understand this. Valid.

...the person who wrote it should get an F regardless of the answer.

Forget the equation. A greater mystery has been uncovered. We all now need to focus all our energies on how the hell did Usarka and pzkpfw figure out how to type in a divide symbol!
Solve this and next we can figure out the chicken or egg argument

[MD]

(test, see if Latex link will work here:

Xc=1/2piFC http://www.codecogs.com/eq.latex?\Xc={\frac 1 2}\pi FC

Xc=1/(2piFC) http://www.codecogs.com/eq.latex?\Xc={1\over{2\pi fC}}


OK, dunno why the latex link is so awful (e.g. it's not showing the division line), but it shows the right overall format.
)



Part 2: if you were told X = 1/2 + 3, what would you say X is?

More evidence that this Man's pc skills are impressive. With presentation skills like this you will win any argument.

[Bald Eagle]

I suspect they just <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-NZ</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> ÷ there IQ by their shoe size and there it is <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-NZ</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> ÷

[marie_speeds]

Lol i haven't had this much fun debating in ages. As stated by others it is how the question was originally written that is flawed. But what really made me laugh was the condescending tone that the 288 used stating that those of us who answered 2 were wrong (and old) because we were implying brackets and treating 2(9+3) as the complete denominator. Lol. That cracked me up. Just because our interpretation was different did not make us stupid. So i posted a shorthand equation which is formatted in the same way as the op. But to solve it one must imply brackets. I am not studying engineering but i am doing a research paper and do get a dressing down from my supervisor when i don't do things correctly but not in the condescending bull shit tone that the 288 brigade used here, telling members with physics degrees to go back to school ffs. Lol. The very fact that none them will solve my equation applying the same technique they used to solve the OP equation speaks volumes. Lol. It would be engineering maths suicide. If any of you ever decide to do some research to prove your theorems then from what i see here there are some awesome members who will make great supervisors, who will challenge you and put you through your paces to prove and backup your theorems without backing yourselves into a corner.

[bogan]

Forget the equation. A greater mystery has been uncovered. We all now need to focus all our energies on how the hell did Usarka and pzkpfw figure out how to type in a divide symbol!
Solve this and next we can figure out the chicken or egg argument

¡ɟɟnʇs uʍop ǝpısdn sɐɥ uǝʌǝ 'ƃuıɹǝʇʇǝl ǝʇɐuɹǝʇlɐ ǝɥʇ llɐ ɥʇıʍ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ǝzıs ǝƃɹɐl ɐ ʇǝƃ ʇsnɾ ¿uɐǝɯ noʎ op ʇɐɥʍ

[bogan]

As stated by others it is how the question was originally written that is flawed.


hallelujah! :woohoo:


But what really made me laugh was the condescending tone that the 288 used stating that those of us who answered 2 were wrong (and old) because we were implying brackets and treating 2(9+3) as the complete denominator. Lol. That cracked me up. Just because our interpretation was different did not make us stupid.

<img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SnUyTNZ4LC4/R9NUtjQLI8I/AAAAAAAAAk0/jfKJmvPD3-Y/s200/pot_calling_kettle_black.bmp" />

[huff3r]

:moon::moon::moon::moon::moon::moon:

[noobi]

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F2%289%2B3%29

Although, if you were to assume 2(9+3) was the denominator then http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F%282%289%2B3%29%29

So, if it were in an engineering paper, which I am studying, they would have to accept both answers, unless you were equating things in real life and having 288 in the equation meant your answer was ridiculous.

Looking at it both ways, its much like the 3 lines meeting at a point with 120 degrees of seperation from each other, is it a point or a corner??:shit:

[steve_t]

Lol i haven't had this much fun debating in ages. As stated by others it is how the question was originally written that is flawed. But what really made me laugh was the condescending tone that the 288 used stating that those of us who answered 2 were wrong (and old) because we were implying brackets and treating 2(9+3) as the complete denominator. Lol. That cracked me up. Just because our interpretation was different did not make us stupid. So i posted a shorthand equation which is formatted in the same way as the op. But to solve it one must imply brackets. I am not studying engineering but i am doing a research paper and do get a dressing down from my supervisor when i don't do things correctly but not in the condescending bull shit tone that the 288 brigade used here, telling members with physics degrees to go back to school ffs. Lol. The very fact that none them will solve my equation applying the same technique they used to solve the OP equation speaks volumes. Lol. It would be engineering maths suicide. If any of you ever decide to do some research to prove your theorems then from what i see here there are some awesome members who will make great supervisors, who will challenge you and put you through your paces to prove and backup your theorems without backing yourselves into a corner.

Interesting. The way I read the thread, it was the 2 brigade that had the condescending tones to start with and the others ended up just retaliating. Maybe I read it wrong :innocent:

[huff3r]

Interesting. The way I read the thread, it was the 2 brigade that had the condescending tones to start with and the others ended up just retaliating. Maybe I read it wrong :innocent:

Watch out she'll be after you next! :shit: :facepalm:

[marie_speeds]

Interesting. The way I read the thread, it was the 2 brigade that had the condescending tones to start with and the others ended up just retaliating. Maybe I read it wrong :innocent:

I admit I was condescending and setting my equation trap was rather mean as there is no way to solve it except to use implied brackets, which I was explicitly told was the error of my approach to the OP equation. I saw early that Bogan had stated the equation is ambiguous written as such without seeing the original equation but I ignored that and instead just carried on winding him up. He's like a little energiser bunny :laugh:....
I was taught to play chess at 3. A simple game of strategy, line up your pieces, set the trap, spring the trap... a rather easy move to make today...

I enjoyed the debate and the bonus side is where I have been hitting my head against a brick wall with my own research paper, today got me strategising and thinking about the approach to my research again :sunny:

[marie_speeds]

Watch out she'll be after you next! :shit: :facepalm:

You can come out of the naughty corner now :innocent:

[BoristheBiter]

Interesting. The way I read the thread, it was the 2 brigade that had the condescending tones to start with and the others ended up just retaliating. Maybe I read it wrong :innocent:

the way i read it was no one was going to admit they were/are wrong and all had condescending tones because they thought they were right.
Just another normal KB thread.

[Jantar]

....I was taught to play chess at 3. A simple game of strategy, line up your pieces, set the trap, spring the trap... a rather easy move to make today.......
www.chess.com I have been the one getting caught in the trap a lot today.

[bogan]

He's like a little energiser bunny :laugh:

Incidentally, that's what she said :msn-wink: without the little of course :innocent:

Every monday needs one of these threads I reckon :yes:

[huff3r]

It was fun while it lasted. And while I was winning :yes: :innocent:

Meh, I just hope the equations I come across during my flight training are better written! :shit:

[EJK]

This is the most competitive poll I've ever seen on KB. This proves that 50% of KBers are morons and the other half, geniuses.

[bogan]

This is the most competitive poll I've ever seen on KB.

Wait for next mondays cylon vs sknet throwdown!

[Jantar]

This is the most competitive poll I've ever seen on KB. This proves that 50% of KBers are morons and the other half, geniuses.
No, it shows that 56 KBers out of 22110 will look at a problem and arrive at a possible solution. The other 22054 either don't understand the question or, even worse, aren't interested.

[huff3r]

The world is flat goddamit.

[Jantar]

FUCK .. what a lot of effort and arguing over bloody numbers ...

I dunno ...it's writen poorly

48/2X(9+3) = 288

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

There's a function missiong in the original equation ...
That is still poorly written. If you really want to translate pre-computer math to modern math then it would be written: 48/(2(9+3)). No function missing, just the implied brackets that those who studied maths prior to the mid 1980's would automatically insert, and those who rely on computers for solving math equations would miss out.

[Jantar]

The world is flat goddamit.
Until you need to plot a great circle course. :innocent:

[huff3r]

Until you need to plot a great circle course. :innocent:

Everywhere I've ever used a spirit level, it still reads the same. Surely this proves that the world is flat? :facepalm: :lol:

[Jantar]

....
Meh, I just hope the equations I come across during my flight training are better written! :shit:


Everywhere I've ever used a spirit level, it still reads the same. Surely this proves that the world is flat? :facepalm: :lol:

:yes: :yes: :yes:

[warewolf]

if you need to interpret it based on non-documented rules then it's poorly designed.Sounds like half the bloody road rules here, especially that kamikaze right-turn rule that should've been revoked years ago!!! :shit:

[BoristheBiter]

Sounds like half the bloody road rules here, especially that kamikaze right-turn rule that should've been revoked years ago!!! :shit:

No, thats the miss-interpretation of documented rules.


Wait for next mondays cylon vs sknet throwdown!

No contest, skynet all the way, cylons are still trying to be too human so will fail.


That is still poorly written. If you really want to translate pre-computer math to modern math then it would be written: 48/(2(9+3)). No function missing, just the implied brackets that those who studied maths prior to the mid 1980's would automatically insert, and those who rely on computers for solving math equations would miss out.

The difference has come about by being able to use calculators is tests. they just can't work it out long hand so by cutting steps they get the wrong answer.

[Banditbandit]

Until you need to plot a great circle course. :innocent:

Never said it wasn't a circle ...


Everywhere I've ever used a spirit level, it still reads the same. Surely this proves that the world is flat? :facepalm: :lol:

Yes.

[marie_speeds]

Incidentally, that's what she said :msn-wink: without the little of course :innocent:

2 minutes is not one thousand and one, one thousand and two said really slow, I found out on another thread that it is approximately 2 seconds :p

[MisterD]

No, it shows that 56 KBers out of 22110 will look at a problem and arrive at a possible solution. The other 22054 either don't understand the question or, even worse, aren't interested.

...it also shows that at least one Kber can't find the correct solution to 26+27....:facepalm:

[Jantar]

...it also shows that at least one Kber can't find the correct solution to 26+27....:facepalm:
When that was posted it was 26 + 26. Now 26 + 30. Maybe some don't even realise that poll numbers get progressively bigger. :shutup:

[MisterD]

When that was posted it was 26 + 26. Now 26 + 30. Maybe some don't even realise that poll numbers get progressively bigger. :shutup:

...and 26 + 26 = what?

Never mind, the poll has finally caught up with you:done:

[Jantar]

...and 26 + 26 = what?

Never mind, the poll has finally caught up with you:done:
At 11:00 pm after 2 bottles of wine it probaly equalled 156. :facepalm:

[avgas]

More importantly. Can anyone tell me what the square root of negative one is? I'm sure it's really easy to find, but I just can't figure it out! The calculator just thinks i have mummy issues, keeps coming up with "Ma Error".
It just doesn't have a good imagination.
Upgraded it to the massive stoner calculator I have. It will even draw you a picture of (x+2)(i+3)(s+4)....trippy

[avgas]

Wait for next mondays cylon vs sknet throwdown!
Hmmmmm a gelatin mass vs a solid state machine. Should be a ball.

Or do you mean cylon troopers vs skynet T series????

[avgas]

Then go back to college. I do maths regularly, and generally with equations more complex than that. A mistake like that made by a pilot, or an engineer could kill people.

I guess thats why engineers have to do so much calculus. It scares me though that the calculator gets it wrong, considering everybodys dependence on them these days.
Only crap calculators buddy.....

and even the most powerful computer is as useful as the monkey operating it.

As for engineers/pilots not getting things wrong............they do on a daily basis.......I know because I am one (engineer......I can't fly for shit)......

As a general rule, when doing calculations I always isolate the equations.
e.g.

(4*5) / ((46(22x * 34b)^45)/27)

otherwise you will always fuckup equations.
Gets even worse when you do a limit equation as you can easily f it up half way and not know.......

[avgas]

Division is one number, over another number. Aka: A fraction.
Actually it can be more complicated than that. It can be a "model".

e.g. replace all the numbers with letters....

a / b (c + d)

now you could say the model is
a/bths of (c+d)
or
a (the proportional part of the model - e.g. how big it is)
over
b(c+d) the attributes of the model

Depends on what you wanted.

In general you get equations broken up as said earlier.

a/b * (c+d)

or

a
------------------
b ( c + d)

which is a/(b(c+d))

clear as mud.

[slofox]

When I first saw the equation as written, I saw it, in my mind's eye, as follows...

48
_____
2(9+3).....which equals 2.


So there ya go.

[YellowDog]

When I first saw the equation as written, I saw it, in my mind's eye, as follows...

48
_____
2(9+3).....which equals 2.


So there ya go.

Maybe it's just the youngsters that have a problem with this simple equation?

I am surprised that no maths teachers have come forward...............

[slofox]

I am surprised that no maths teachers have come forward...............

I was a maths resource teacher in a former life...but don't tell anyone...

[davebullet]

It's 288 dumbarses :-)

[meteor]

I asked my year 13 daughter, she said it's 288, so did my wife, I got confused when I saw it was mathematical and my brain started to hurt...

From Cheers (for those that can remember)

"Well you see, Norm, it's like this . . . A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers."

Now where's my beer?

[slofox]

Hafta say - I have really enjoyed this thread! Apart from the infighting of course...:whistle:

Quite a convoluted piece of simplicity really. A very nice example of ambiguity in regards to how one might see it. Both ways can be defended - there is no right or wrong here. (Except MYYYYYYYYY way of course!)

Whoever wrote it should be SHOT!.

But paid for entertainment value.

[Hanne]

Equations like this are the whole reason I have a job!

[Latte]

Equations like this are the whole reason I have a job!

Noooooooo, let it die! ;)

BTW the government's answer would be 145 (thats the fairest, most politically correct answer, whether it's right or not isn't important)

[Hitcher]

How did you get 288? Even looking at it, I still can't see it.

Anyway, according to BEDMAS, the answer is 2

BODMAS. Gahh!

The answer is still 2.

[Camshaft]

yeah its 2. says mathmatical modeling lecturer, and my own common sense

[Hitcher]

To be anything other than 2, the brackets aren't needed in the original equation.

[steve_t]

Is this still going? :shit: