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

[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

[sil3nt]

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en...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.

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

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

[huff3r]

KB has a 50% dumb arse ratio
(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....

[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 (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 damn

Nah its there its located top right hand side of your screen

[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

[HenryDorsetCase]

iTS 2 INNIT?