48÷2(9+3) =

48÷2(9+3)

  • 2

    Votes: 277 47.2%

  • 288

    Votes: 273 46.5%

  • ??

    Votes: 37 6.3%
  • Total voters
    587
mjoe said:
i am surprised at the rocket scientist's lack of concern about order of operations being arbitrary. no wonder the challenger blew up
Click to expand...

It's not arbitrary. There is a specific order. Any ambiguous equal-level operations are resolved by giving precedence to the left-most operator. In this case, the division sign. The only reason any confusion exists is because of how the equation actually looks. The division sign is is in the middle (implying one side over the other) and there is no multiplication symbol in front of the parenthesis (making us want to distribute)

If the equation was more complex:

48÷2(9+3)+22/41(21*7+3)/54*(8^2+3)^2+5

We wouldn't have the same confusion we're having now and would resort to the rules we know instead of trying to jump over them and solve what 'looks' right.
 
Bughead said:
The correct answer is that they're both "correct" as has been stated many times before.

One answer isn't any more correct than the other, it just depends on what rules you're using.

If you get two different calculators (using different sets of rules) and put this into it, you'll get both answers.

16h6ja8.jpg
Click to expand...

just because a calculator was programed by a retard doesn't make it right. So now Bughead, Rampancy, and Xaps are retarded. Can we get a padded TW forum where we can put people like them to sit around and herp derp without annoying the rest of the population.
 
You can't just type it into google and assume google is right. google fills out the equation to be (48/2)*(9+3), google inserted its own parenthesis since the equation was unclear.
 
DropSquad said:
just because a calculator was programed by a retard doesn't make it right. So now Bughead, Rampancy, and Xaps are retarded. Can we get a padded TW forum where we can put people like them to sit around and herp derp without annoying the rest of the population.
Click to expand...
Before calculators, back in the paleolithic days when people wore untanned hides, ate their food raw, and communicated by drums and bullroarers, people would have just said that the expression is sloppy presentation. Back then, you avoided ambiguity by using parentheses and, if necessary, nesting parentheses. There is no theoretical basis for the sequence of operations; left-to-right is used by many systems of writing natural languages, but the universe does not require it. Sequence of operations is a convention for permitting communication. When calculators were first introduced (in the neolithic about the same time as dogs were domesticated), some used Polish notation and some used reverse Polish notation.
Click to expand...
#1 - Juxtaposition implying multiplication is a bad idea. Always use some sort of operator. It won't necessarily change anything, but it will help.

48 / 2 * (9+3)

#2 - Parentheses rule.

48 / 2 * 12

#3 - Multiplication and Division are the SAME precedence. Given confusion, convention says work left-to-right

(48/2) * 12 = 24 * 12

#4 - I just corrected a large issue in statistics. I saw books and popwer points and hand-writen papers, ALL stating 1/n, 1/2n, 1/3n, etc. where they MEANT 1/(n), 1/(2n), 1/(3n), etc. Even authors and editors can get it wrong. However, given sufficient contextual clues, it can be decoded.

#5 - Be very careful un what environment you are work. My primary programming language decodes right-to left. This would give, besides the syntax error for no operator...

48 / 2 * (9+3) = 48 / 2 * 12 = 48 / 24 = 2

In order to get it NOT to do that, add parentheses

(48 / 2)*(9+3)

So, you see, everyone can be right.
Click to expand...
 
telos said:
why would there be a difference in implied over explicit? At that point why would either be more important than the parenthesis?

I'm curious to read about this.
Click to expand...
To me, it provides a clue to what led up to the person typing the expression this way. It makes me think of someone plugging numbers into a formula, and substituting the division symbol for the horizontal line.
 
So, if you got that equation handed to you as the solution to something important, would you accept it as is?

If so, what industry do you work in?
 
why are people still arguing the answer when the real solution to the problem is a lesson on clear communication and precision?
 
xpdnc said:
So, if you got that equation handed to you as the solution to something important, would you accept it as is?

If so, what industry do you work in?
Click to expand...

My degrees are in electrical and computer engineering. I work in control systems. I've gone through calc 4 dif-eq line-alg statistics ect. If some one gave me this equation I would solve it. Get the correct answer and not bitch about it.

Its not in Polish notation or reverse polish notation. Any programming language I have used would get 288 as an answer if typed in as is, any calculator I have been able to get my hands(TI-89, TI-83 some ancient IBM branded thing that actually has a switch for polish notation) on today has given me 288 typed in as is. Doing the math in my head I came to 288 before opening the thread.

I see why people are getting 2 but I can't fathom how they think they are correct. Yes adding more information would make it more clear and in some computer languages might even be necessary but just looking at the math this equation is concise and has only one answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top