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

[Sanglyon]

"/" is the same thing as "____", they both mean "divided by."

i'll repeat myself:

No, it's the same thing as ÷ which also means divided by.
"/" is not a shortcut to write a fraction without using a drawing tool, it's just the sign that's on a computer keyboard.

÷ or / means "divide the one item on the left by the one item on the right". If the item on the right is a whole equation, then it must be enclosed in parenthesis. If there are no parenthesis, then it is only the first item that is concerned, here the 2.

Let's say I have to work 48 days, but only half time. I get paid 9$ cash plus 3$ in food.
How much do I gain?
48/2*(9+3) = 288 $

Actually, the word problem you wrote would be mathematically written as

(48(9+3))/2 = X

a completely different problem from the one we're looking at. A mistake that basic makes me question how well you understand the subject you're arguing. As for your computer science claim, that may be true in the realm of compsci, but in math classes, the / really is shorthand for a fraction bar. People actually write problems that way by hand.

Edit: That's assuming you meant a $9 daily wage plus $3 in food per day. If the wage were by the hour but the food were still by the day, and by half day you meant half of a 24 hour day, it would be

(48(3))+(48(24/2)(9))=X, which is still a different problem from the one we're looking at.

Of course the wage are supposed to be daily.

And (48(9+3))/2 = X is the same as (9+3)48/2, which is the same as 48/2(9+3).
"bonnet blanc, blanc bonnet".

As for your ad hominem attack, I do happen to have a uni degree in math, thank you for your concern.

 

[jopomeister]

As many have said, it depends:
__48___
24·(9+3)
=
2
Or
48
--- · (9+3) = 288
24

That's pretty much it.

 

[LoFr3Eq]

From what I've seen, either are right, but only in the context of the local teachings in regards to the ordering of a math equation. If it wasn't so ambiguous about whether to use BEDMAS/BODMAS or PEMDAS, it would be easy.

If there were more parentheses it would be a piece of cake.

In NZ we use BEDMAS usually, so I get 288.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

Calculator says 288.

Hail to the robot overlord.

Exactly what I did...

OT: I've always been taught it as BIDMAS (Brackets, Indices, Division, Multiplication, addition, subtraction.)

so it's 288.

 

[mps4li3n]

Given that the fraction bar implies only a ratio between two numbers,

All the symbols / ___) are ratios between two numbers... doesn't mean one of the numbers can't be in the form of a formula... 1/x etc.

And Occam's Razor isn't proof, even if it's always a good idea to use it...

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

"/" is the same thing as "____", they both mean "divided by."

i'll repeat myself:

No, it's the same thing as ÷ which also means divided by.
"/" is not a shortcut to write a fraction without using a drawing tool, it's just the sign that's on a computer keyboard.

÷ or / means "divide the one item on the left by the one item on the right". If the item on the right is a whole equation, then it must be enclosed in parenthesis. If there are no parenthesis, then it is only the first item that is concerned, here the 2.

Let's say I have to work 48 days, but only half time. I get paid 9$ cash plus 3$ in food.
How much do I gain?
48/2*(9+3) = 288 $

Actually, the word problem you wrote would be mathematically written as

(48(9+3))/2 = X

a completely different problem from the one we're looking at. A mistake that basic makes me question how well you understand the subject you're arguing. As for your computer science claim, that may be true in the realm of compsci, but in math classes, the / really is shorthand for a fraction bar. People actually write problems that way by hand.

That's funny, because that's exactly the same thing, but written differently.

48x(1/2) if the same as (48x1)/2... or 48x1:2 if you go left -> right etc.

Huh, it does come out to 288. Thing is, though, it's unambiguously 288, because everything that needs to be in parenthesis is so enclosed. The issue here is that things aren't properly enclosed in the original question.

 

[Bearjing]

Huh, it does come out to 288. Thing is, though, it's unambiguously 288, because everything that needs to be in parenthesis is so enclosed. The issue here is that things aren't properly enclosed in the original question.

But it is enclosed properly, you just don't know how to read it.

 

[Sanglyon]

Given that the fraction bar implies only a ratio between two numbers,

All the symbols are ratios between two numbers... doesn't mean one of the numbers can't be in the form of a formula... 1/x etc.

And Occam's Razor isn't proof, even if it's always a good idea to use it...

In wich case said formula is between parenthesis.
23*(2+4) =/= 23*2+4.
No parenthesis: first number only
Parenthesis : the whole formula.

 

[Smooth Operator]

There is always one A-hole that thinks he tricked you with a piss poor question...

Anyway it's 288 if written as it should be.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Given that the fraction bar implies only a ratio between two numbers,

All the symbols / ___) are ratios between two numbers... doesn't mean one of the numbers can't be in the form of a formula... 1/x etc.

And Occam's Razor isn't proof, even if it's always a good idea to use it...

And my point is this: when presented with x/y+z, what is the basis for interpreting that statement as
_x_
y+z

Rather than

x + z
y

Without parenthesis to resolve the problem of precedence we are apparently left with conflicting interpretations (one of which I am utterly unfamiliar with). If we believe the former interpretation, then to express the latter the equation would suddenly have to be (x/y) + z. If we believe the latter but want to express the former we would simply use x / (y + z).

This does have me a bit curious. At no point have I ever been exposed to that first interpretation and I assume it is simply a regional dialect which begs the question of where such a thing is taught.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Huh, it does come out to 288. Thing is, though, it's unambiguously 288, because everything that needs to be in parenthesis is so enclosed. The issue here is that things aren't properly enclosed in the original question.

But it is enclosed properly, you just don't know how to read it.

It could be a difference in regional notation, kind of like how in America, 1,240 is read as "one thousand, two hundred and forty" while in England, the same number is read as "one and twenty four hundredths." Or am I incorrect in guessing from your use of the term "uni" that you aren't from the US?

Edit: It wasn't you who used the term "uni;" it's late, and I'm having a hard time keeping track of who said what. The question still stands, though -- what part of the world are you from?

 

[mps4li3n]

Huh, it does come out to 288. Thing is, though, it's unambiguously 288, because everything that needs to be in parenthesis is so enclosed. The issue here is that things aren't properly enclosed in the original question.

Of course it does, the number of days or the pay per day being cut in half is the same thing, because cutting one in half also cuts the other in real world terms...

What you did is calculate it by seeing how much he makes a month and the cutting that in half, while he cut his days in half and then multiplied that with how much he made each day...

 

[Sanglyon]

A little google search, since BEDMAS/... are not used in these parts, told me:
BEDMAS is an acronym that stands for:
B-brackets
E-exponents
DM-multiply or divide (left to right)
AS-add or subtract (B](left to right)[/B]

so, even using this stuff, 42/2(9+3) = 288
brackets=9+3=12
DM: left: 42/2 = 21
DM: right: 21*12 = 288

 

[Bearjing]

Given that the fraction bar implies only a ratio between two numbers,

All the symbols / ___) are ratios between two numbers... doesn't mean one of the numbers can't be in the form of a formula... 1/x etc.

And Occam's Razor isn't proof, even if it's always a good idea to use it...

And my point is this: when presented with x/y+z, what is the basis for interpreting that statement as
_x_
y+z

Rather than

x + z
y

Without parenthesis to resolve the problem of precedence we are apparently left with conflicting interpretations (one of which I am utterly unfamiliar with). If we believe the former interpretation, then to express the latter the equation would suddenly have to be (x/y) + z. If we believe the latter but want to express the former we would simply use x / (y + z).

This does have me a bit curious. At no point have I ever been exposed to that first interpretation and I assume it is simply a regional dialect which begs the question of where such a thing is taught.

Every country uses PEMDAS, it is just that they sometimes call them by different names. But the rules are the same. so x/y+z would be

x + z
y

Unless y and z were in ()

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Every country uses PEMDAS, it is just that they sometimes call them by different names. But the rules are the same. so x/y+z would be

x + z
y

Unless y and z were in ()

This was my assumption as well but people seem to be arguing that this is not, universally, the case.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

its 2. at least i was taught bodmas and we were meant to do it how the brackets come first even just the number outside of it.

 

[Bearjing]

Huh, it does come out to 288. Thing is, though, it's unambiguously 288, because everything that needs to be in parenthesis is so enclosed. The issue here is that things aren't properly enclosed in the original question.

But it is enclosed properly, you just don't know how to read it.

It could be a difference in regional notation, kind of like how in America, 1,240 is read as "one thousand, two hundred and forty" while in England, the same number is read as "one and twenty four hundredths." Or am I incorrect in guessing from your use of the term "uni" that you aren't from the US?

Edit: It wasn't you who used the term "uni;" it's late, and I'm having a hard time keeping track of who said what. The question still stands, though -- what part of the world are you from?

Yeah im a little tired too, Im from the states.

 

[mps4li3n]

And my point is this: when presented with x/y+z, what is the basis for interpreting that statement as
_x_
y+z

Rather than

x + z
y

Without parenthesis to resolve the problem of precedence we are apparently left with conflicting interpretations (one of which I am utterly unfamiliar with). If we believe the former interpretation, then to express the latter the equation would suddenly have to be (x/y) + z. If we believe the latter but want to express the former we would simply use x / (y + z).

This does have me a bit curious. At no point have I ever been exposed to that first interpretation and I assume it is simply a regional dialect which begs the question of where such a thing is taught.

Lack of reference...

Like i said, no "/" in school over here, so when seeing it used for 1/2 etc the assumption is that it's simply a way to write "___" on a computer, and thus the same rules apply...

Which lead to interpreting the more complex stuff like 1/xy... sure 1/x+y might make one more circumspect, but it's still confusing enough to require clarification. Especially since like i said, the left to right rule is not something i remember anyone teaching, as we always used "()" or "___"... much clearer that way.

And interesting thing would be to see when "/" started being used as on paper "____" works just fine and is much clearer...

 

[mps4li3n]

Yeah, the problem is that the "/" sign (apparently called a "solidus") used to be more clear in writing while in computing it was replaced by a normal "slash", which was different before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidus_%28punctuation%29#Mathematics

So obviously the "/" sign we're using here isn't as wide spread as you all assume.

As i said, if it was written 48:2(x+y) there'd be no problem... and that's why it's not a math problem, but one of how symbols are used around the world etc.