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

[MD]

iTS 2 INNIT?

Yes, Yes, it is Two. Unless you don't understand how to read from left to right.

[pzkpfw]

Yes, Yes, it is Two. Unless you don't understand how to read from left to right.

understanding left then right is what makes it 288.

[marie_speeds]

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....

Attachment 236265

Written like that changes things......

[MD]

Written like that changes things......

Exactly. He has changed the equation to suit 'the other' answer, by removing
the (9+3) part from below the divide by line and thereby making it a standalone instruction.

[schrodingers cat]

124 and climbing

[marie_speeds]

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!

Oh yeah the NCEA system is infallable. Give students several attempts to deem themselves competent....use test papers as revision papers and then give them back that same paper to "test" them. LOL. To be competent in a Unit Standard 50% will do... And the govt now pretending that it works by forcing all Tertiary Institutes in NZ to embed Numeracy and Literacy into all courses to cover up the fact that the tertiary institutes are complaining about the level of students that regulations force them to enrol since NCEA came into effect...... the answer to the question as it is written in the OP is 2.....2(9+3) is the denominator when it is written like that. Solve inside the bracket, expand the bracket.... at least that was what I was taught. That makes the 2 outside of the bracket the co-efficient of the brackets and part of the denominator. But just to make really bloody sure tomorrow I will ask Wayne ex DSIR and Ag-research electronics research division and Dr. Nigel whizz kid extrodanaire who is currently involved in microprocessor development programmed using ladder logic with some Italian Company. One of them will tell me

[bogan]

Exactly. He has changed the equation to suit 'the other' answer, by removing
the (9+3) part from below the divide by line and thereby making it a standalone instruction.

what if it was 2x(9+3) then, is the 9+3 bit still below the line?

also, surely it should be obvious to everyone by now that this notation is shorthand, and only correctly decipherable to the one who wrote it. I've been know to have trouble understanding my own shorthand, let-alone anyone elses

[Latte]

Exactly. He has changed the equation to suit 'the other' answer, by removing
the (9+3) part from below the divide by line and thereby making it a standalone instruction.

I think that's where the issue is, as there's no "classic" division symbol the "/" is used. And in most cases it won't affect things. This has been written to specifically divide people as it's really ambiguous.

If someone can draw a piccy like huffer did of the original equation, but with a "division" symbol instead of the "/" then would you interpret it the same.

[marie_speeds]

I think that's where the issue is, as there's no "classic" division symbol the "/" is used. And in most cases it won't affect things. This has been written to specifically divide people as it's really ambiguous.

If someone can draw a piccy like huffer did of the original equation, but with a "division" symbol instead of the "/" then would you interpret it the same.

What he drew and what was in the OP are 2 different equations.....

[Mental Trousers]

Just saw a big argument on another forum.

Is it 288 or 2?

My maths tells me its 288.

BODMAS

B - Stands for Bracket.
O - Stands for "OF" or "Orders" (i.e. Powers and Square Roots, etc.)
D - Stands for Division.
M - Stands for Multiplication.
A - Stands for Addition.
S - Stands for Subtraction

You do the math

(haven't read the entire thread ....)

Brackets (no matter how they're being used) are highest priority. So a multiplication implied by the use of a bracket takes precedence over the explicit division.

The other thing is that the / implies everything that follows is underneath.

The answer is 2 thanks to BODMAS.

Game Over, next please.

[huff3r]

(haven't read the entire thread ....)


The other thing is that the / implies everything that follows is underneath.

Since when? So if everything that follows is underneath how does one write a more complex equation with multiple divisions and or fractions. By your reckoning if i was to write:

1/2+1/2

Then I would have a 3 line fraction.... and the answer would be 1/6, instead of being 1...

[huff3r]

Written like that changes things......

That is exactly the same as the original equation, due to the lack of brackets surrounding the 2(9+3).

[marie_speeds]

That is exactly the same as the original equation, due to the lack of brackets surrounding the 2(9+3).

Actually you're right it is the same equation and the answer is still 2. Cross multipication of fractions i.e 48 over 2 multiplied by 12 over one still makes the answer 2. Thanks for clarifying that....

[bogan]

Actually you're right it is the same equation and the answer is still 2. Cross multipication of fractions i.e 48 over 2 multiplied by 12 over one still makes the answer 2. Thanks for clarifying that....

oh dear

this thread had potential when terminators and cylons were being discussed

[huff3r]

Actually you're right it is the same equation and the answer is still 2. Cross multipication of fractions i.e 48 over 2 multiplied by 12 over one still makes the answer 2. Thanks for clarifying that....

Umm... you cant cross multiply like that. 12 over 1 = 12, so 48/2 x 12/1 equals 48/2 x 12 still....

Cross multiplying is for simplifying algebraic equations where one fraction = another. Not multiplied by another. Equals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_multiply

Also, while im there:

The standard order of operations, or precedence, is expressed in the following chart.

terms inside brackets
exponents and roots
multiplication and division
addition and subtraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Can it be an more OBVIOUS?