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

[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

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

[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

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.... 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

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..... 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....

You guys are hilarious.....

[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

[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

Xc=1/(2piFC)


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 ÷ there IQ by their shoe size and there it is ÷

[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!

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.

[huff3r]

[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...%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??