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

**steve_t** · 11th April 2011, 20:59

Originally Posted by 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.

Interesting. The way I read the thread, it was the 2 brigade that had the condescending tones to start with and the others ended up just retaliating. Maybe I read it wrong

**huff3r** · 11th April 2011, 21:11

Originally Posted by steve_t

Interesting. The way I read the thread, it was the 2 brigade that had the condescending tones to start with and the others ended up just retaliating. Maybe I read it wrong

Watch out she'll be after you next!

**marie_speeds** · 11th April 2011, 21:19

Originally Posted by steve_t

Interesting. The way I read the thread, it was the 2 brigade that had the condescending tones to start with and the others ended up just retaliating. Maybe I read it wrong

I admit I was condescending and setting my equation trap was rather mean as there is no way to solve it except to use implied brackets, which I was explicitly told was the error of my approach to the OP equation. I saw early that Bogan had stated the equation is ambiguous written as such without seeing the original equation but I ignored that and instead just carried on winding him up. He's like a little energiser bunny

....
I was taught to play chess at 3. A simple game of strategy, line up your pieces, set the trap, spring the trap... a rather easy move to make today...

I enjoyed the debate and the bonus side is where I have been hitting my head against a brick wall with my own research paper, today got me strategising and thinking about the approach to my research again

**marie_speeds** · 11th April 2011, 21:21

Originally Posted by huff3r

Watch out she'll be after you next!

You can come out of the naughty corner now

**BoristheBiter** · 11th April 2011, 21:24

Originally Posted by steve_t

Interesting. The way I read the thread, it was the 2 brigade that had the condescending tones to start with and the others ended up just retaliating. Maybe I read it wrong

the way i read it was no one was going to admit they were/are wrong and all had condescending tones because they thought they were right.
Just another normal KB thread.

**Jantar** · 11th April 2011, 21:25

Originally Posted by marie_speeds

....I was taught to play chess at 3. A simple game of strategy, line up your pieces, set the trap, spring the trap... a rather easy move to make today.......

www.chess.com I have been the one getting caught in the trap a lot today.

**bogan** · 11th April 2011, 22:55

Originally Posted by marie_speeds

He's like a little energiser bunny

Incidentally, that's what she said

without the little of course

Every monday needs one of these threads I reckon

**huff3r** · 11th April 2011, 22:57

It was fun while it lasted. And while I was winning

Meh, I just hope the equations I come across during my flight training are better written!

**EJK** · 11th April 2011, 22:59

This is the most competitive poll I've ever seen on KB. This proves that 50% of KBers are morons and the other half, geniuses.

**bogan** · 11th April 2011, 23:03

Originally Posted by EJK

This is the most competitive poll I've ever seen on KB.

Wait for next mondays cylon vs sknet throwdown!

**Jantar** · 11th April 2011, 23:09

Originally Posted by EJK

This is the most competitive poll I've ever seen on KB. This proves that 50% of KBers are morons and the other half, geniuses.

No, it shows that 56 KBers out of 22110 will look at a problem and arrive at a possible solution. The other 22054 either don't understand the question or, even worse, aren't interested.

**huff3r** · 11th April 2011, 23:12

The world is flat goddamit.

**Jantar** · 11th April 2011, 23:14

Originally Posted by 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 ...

That is still poorly written. If you really want to translate pre-computer math to modern math then it would be written: 48/(2(9+3)). No function missing, just the implied brackets that those who studied maths prior to the mid 1980's would automatically insert, and those who rely on computers for solving math equations would miss out.