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

[MisterD]

Have we got a definitive answer yet?

Yep...it's either two black faces or a white candlestick

[Indiana_Jones]

2

-Indy

[bogan]

Have we got a definitive answer yet?

The definitive answer, is it's inconclusive. Anyone who writes with such ambiguity is either doing it wrong, or using personal shorthand.

[marie_speeds]

The definitive answer, is it's inconclusive. Anyone who writes with such ambiguity is either doing it wrong, or using personal shorthand.

Oh dear that was a bit of a side step when you were so adamant that the answer is 288.....and anyone who got 2 were wrong, now it is ambiguous? answer my question as below...to prove all your points.....simple first year Uni engineering so it should be simple

Xc=1/2pifC (written as a single line short hand equation just like op)

where f=50 hertz and C=80micro Farads
So Xc=?

Get it wrong and I suggest you change majors....LOL....Get it right and it means that you are using double standards when solving single line short hand equations to justify your answer by inserting brackets where none is shown LOL

It is only a very gentle squeezing.....

[bogan]

Side step? no, just my earlier interpretation was wrong.

Again, it's up to interpretation, in your example, people will write that in shorthand and being a commonly known equation it will be interpreted correctly. Just as kenitic energy will go the other way Ek=1/2mvv

[marie_speeds]

Side step? no, just my earlier interpretation was wrong.

Again, it's up to interpretation, in your example, people will write that in shorthand and being a commonly known equation it will be interpreted correctly. Just as kenitic energy will go the other way Ek=1/2mvv

Bwahahahahaha.... what's the answer to my equation? Simple first year uni engineering.... Don't tell me that you are going to use implied brackets to solve it

[bogan]

Bwahahahahaha.... what's the answer to my equation? Simple first year uni engineering.... Don't tell me that you are going to use implied brackets to solve it

actually I will use the original equation to solve it, in which the brackets are explicitly defined. After all, that is what the shorthand version refers to.

Solve the kinetic energy equation in your implied brackets way, and you'll fail a 7th form physics test.

[marie_speeds]

actually I will use the original equation to solve it, in which the brackets are explicitly defined. After all, that is what the shorthand version refers to.

Solve the kinetic energy equation in your implied brackets way, and you'll fail a 7th form physics test.

I have not defined brackets and have written it in shorthand as per the layout of the OP..... nor does any engineering text book show the formula I have stated with explicitly defined brackets.... if you use brackets to solve my equation then sorry but that would now be a blatant double standard of everything that has been argued to justify the answer as 288.

[Whynot]

This thread is hard core

[bogan]

I have not defined brackets and have written it in shorthand as per the layout of the OP..... nor does any engineering text book show the formula I have stated with explicitly defined brackets.... if you use brackets to solve my equation then sorry but that would now be a blatant double standard of everything that has been argued to justify the answer as 288.

Using a double line formula with multiple symbols on the bottom is explicitly defining brackets, because any correct derivation from a two line to single line equation would add them to show that the bottom line is to be processed first; you know, to save a bit of confusion. Got an answer to the kinetic energy equation yet?

[bogan]

This thread is hard core

But still heaps easier than the scottish thread!

[MisterD]

Got an answer to the kinetic energy equation yet?

I know the formula for kinetic energy and I still read what you've written as the reciprocal of 2mvv...

The intuitive response is always to (a) put everything separated by the '/' onto separate lines and (b) group everything together when multiplication is implied by ommitting the 'x'.

A small sample trial (I tried it on me) shows a less clear result if the '/' is replaced by '÷'.

[marie_speeds]

Using a double line formula with multiple symbols on the bottom is explicitly defining brackets, because any correct derivation from a two line to single line equation would add them to show that the bottom line is to be processed first; you know, to save a bit of confusion. equation yet?

"sigh".... stop trying to sidestep the issue with your justifications and answer the equation..... I have not explicity defined brackets and nor does any engineering text book on planet earth. I have written it in shorthand as per op. First year engineering so should be simple......

P.S I didn't do 7th form physics. And have given an equation based on same format as OP, so use the same rules you applied to OP equation and solve it.....

[bogan]

I know the formula for kinetic energy and I still read what you've written as the reciprocal of 2mvv...

exactly, peoples interpretations of shorthand are different, i read the Xc as 1/2 multiplied by whatever is after it, but know the equation so use the proper one.

The intuitive response is always to (a) put everything separated by the '/' onto separate lines and (b) group everything together when multiplication is implied by ommitting the 'x'.

Poll results show that is the intuitive response for only 46.91% of participants, this is why using the proper bracketry in either case is useful, or just use words equation writer.

[bogan]

"sigh".... stop trying to sidestep the issue with your justifications and answer the equation..... I have not explicity defined brackets and nor does any engineering text book on planet earth. I have written it in shorthand as per op. First year engineering so should be simple......

P.S I didn't do 7th form physics. And have given an equation based on same format as OP, so use the same rules you applied to OP equation and solve it.....

ok, if i didn't know the equation I would just process it left to right, as per bodmas without 'implicit brackets', which I can't find reference to in any mathematical texts, got a link to that?