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

[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 ---- 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 Txt speak is enough of a blight on it's own, we simply cannot cope with similar ambiguity emerging in engineering and the sciences

[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

I still want a refund!

[YellowDog]

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

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

[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

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

http://michiganstate.247sports.com/B...293--1787217/3

[pzkpfw]

Well you understand them incorrectly

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

http://michiganstate.247sports.com/B...293--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

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

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.