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

[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

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

[marie_speeds]

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

mine is 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.