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

[marie_speeds]

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

[Oblivion]

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

So we can have an arguement and not embarrass ourselves?

[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?

I'm not embarrassed yet just a bit tipsy

[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/m...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/m...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/m...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

[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).