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

[XzarTheMad]

My last attempt in this thread before I give up.

Since there is no visible symbol of multiplication between the 2 and the paranthesis, it MUST be a single entity, 2(9+3). The idea that you must put paranthesis around it holds no weight, as I can just as well say that you must put a paranthesis around 48/2 for the 288 answer to be correct. It's not a matter of poorly written or lacking paranthesis, it's a matter of poor reading comprehension.

Had it been 48/2*(9+3), then it's correct that there is a problem. But, it's not. It's clearly there, in the title. No multiplication symbol. It's a single entity. It must be treated first, resulting in (2*9)+(2*3) = 24, thus making the answer 2. The entire question is based on this. This is THE question. Can you see this? Do you know this? And unless this was a question thought up by a moron in his mom's basement, I can't see any reason this would not be made EXACTLY to test people on this rule, that if you omit a multiplication symbol it's because they're a single entity. Just like 4X = 4*X, but because you treat them as a single entity you omit the multiplication symbol.

Actually, the parenthesis is a clear sign. If there are no other symbols (or a parenthesized portion isn't noticeably used as an exponent), the parenthesis stands for multiplication. Trust me. As someone who has a college degree in math and is working on their PhD. Let's take your 4X = 4*X example, and slightly modify it to 1/4x. Now, as we look at this, it is the same as 1/4 * x, however you are trying to claim it equal to 1/(4x). Because there is not anything to specialize that the x is in the denominator, the default methodology used by mathematicians the world over is that it is multiplied. When you "omit" a multiplication sign, it doesn't make them a single entry. 1/4x = 1/4 * x 1/(4x)

Another way to go about this, is simply substitution. Say that (9+3) = x. Now we have 48/2x = 24x, because nowhere does it say that x is being used to divide, because the mathematical equation is written purely left to write and therefore defaults to multiplication. If this was handwritten as 48/(2x) and someone translated it to 48/2x not realizing what they were doing, then it is an error on their behalf.

I don't claim to be any sort of clever when it comes to math, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the problem at hand. I'll admit, it's not a rule per se. However, in this context I stand by what I say: The lack of a clear multiplication symbol implies that the 2 and the paranthesis are a single entity.

My use of a "rule" was because I don't claim to hold enough relevance or knowledge for people to acknowledge anything I say simply because "I say so". Take it as an attempt to explain something abstract in your second language, in a field of expertise that is not your primary.

With this, I bid you adieu. 6am is probably a bad time to discuss math.

 

[SageSays]

My last attempt in this thread before I give up.

Heh. Good luck with that...

Since there is no visible symbol of multiplication between the 2 and the paranthesis, it MUST be a single entity, 2(9+3). The idea that you must put paranthesis around it holds no weight, as I can just as well say that you must put a paranthesis around 48/2 for the 288 answer to be correct. It's not a matter of poorly written or lacking paranthesis, it's a matter of poor reading comprehension.

Had it been 48/2*(9+3), then it's correct that there is a problem. But, it's not. It's clearly there, in the title. No multiplication symbol. It's a single entity. It must be treated first, resulting in (2*9)+(2*3) = 24, thus making the answer 2. The entire question is based on this. This is THE question. Can you see this? Do you know this? And unless this was a question thought up by a moron in his mom's basement, I can't see any reason this would not be made EXACTLY to test people on this rule, that if you omit a multiplication symbol it's because they're a single entity. Just like 4X = 4*X, but because you treat them as a single entity you omit the multiplication symbol.

Jarl has it right. Where it is not explicitly stated all equations after a division sign are to be considered a whole equation, basically given their own brackets. By not providing any explicit operators after the division the equation reads 48/(2(9+3)).
Jarl even provides a step by step breakdown for solving the equation.

You multiply into the parenthesis, as such:
2*(9+3) = (2*9)+(2*3) = 18+6 = 24

You can't divide by a single number in the denominator and leave out the rest. Everything "above" the division and everything "below" the division.

I hope ... this is a clear and easy matter of calculating it using your brain, not a standard formula.

48/2(9+3) = 48/(2*9)+(2*3) = 48/18+6 = 48/24 = 2

Anything else is incorrect.

A win from clear thinking, and much loss from rote education. Poor Aunt Sally Doesn't Master Equations.

It is interesting to note how rote learning affects interactions with things like Google and calculators. I suspect the calculators got the answer wrong because they were asked the wrong question. Nobody said they were smart.

Edit;

Actually, the parenthesis is a clear sign. If there are no other symbols (or a parenthesized portion isn't noticeably used as an exponent), the parenthesis stands for multiplication.

No argument there.

Let's take your 4X = 4*X example, and slightly modify it to 1/4x. Now, as we look at this, it is the same as 1/4 * x, however you are trying to claim it equal to 1/(4x). Because there is not anything to specialize that the x is in the denominator, the default methodology used by mathematicians the world over is that it is multiplied. When you "omit" a multiplication sign, it doesn't make them a single entry. 1/4x = 1/4 * x 1/(4x)

A very necessary distinction to make when dealing with vectors, or polar mathematics, as there are great differences in these equations. It is also appropriate for tensor equations but this is simple arithmetic with an algebraic component.

Another way to go about this, is simply substitution. Say that (9+3) = x. Now we have 48/2x = 24x, because nowhere does it say that x is being used to divide, because the mathematical equation is written purely left to write and therefore defaults to multiplication. If this was handwritten as 48/(2x) and someone translated it to 48/2x not realizing what they were doing, then it is an error on their behalf.

If we substitute (x+y) instead, we get 48/2x + 2y. Following your logic that makes the answer 48/18+6 = 8.6r or eight and two thirds, which doesn't seem to be an acceptable solution; neither 2 nor 288.

Trust me. As someone who has a college degree in math and is working on their PhD.

I don't have to, it's maths so I can check for myself. Let's hope that you're in theoretical math like string theory, so you never have to run into real world issues like these.

Anyway, I know the answer. It's 42. Maybe you're looking at the wrong question?

That's what SageSays

 

[rees263]

My gut instinct tells me the answer should be 2. Obviously if this solution was hand written there would be zero ambiguity. A quick glance would lead me to believe that the 2(9+3) should be treated together, so 48/24=2.

However if you took a step back and wrote it out as such: 48/2(9+3) = 48 * 1/2 * (9+3) then that would come out 288.

In reality, if someone presented me with that problem I would tell them to stop being a dick and write it legibly. Even after completing a degree in mathematics I've never been expected to solve such a problem (ie a broken one).

 

[Spadge]

I was taught that division signs, '/', count as being a grouping symbol. Ergo, using that logic you would wind up with 48 over top of 2*(9+3), which would be better clarified as 48/(2*(9+3)).

It all depends on the order that you think it should be done in. Without clarification, it all depends on how YOUR math teacher taught you.

Interesting that you mention the implied grouping. In all the mathematics that I've done, the implication has been the reverse. That is, that the implied grouping is around the term immediately before and immediately after the division symbol.

a/b sin(c) = (a/b)*sin(c) =/= a/(b*sin(c)).

Every piece of software I have at my immediate disposal agrees with this interpretion. Answer is 288.

EDIT:

In reality, if someone presented me with that problem I would tell them to stop being a dick and write it legibly. Even after completing a degree in mathematics I've never been expected to solve such a problem (ie a broken one).

With most of a degree in engineering, I agree. If I had to answer it, there'd be a note in the corner from me saying "Ambiguous:- I interpreted equation as ()".

 

[mew4ever23]

I was taught BEDMAS, PEMDAS must be foreign

That's what I'm thinking too.

[sub]The Escapist keeps nomming my posts.[/sub]

PEMDAS is the same as BEDMAS - They just swapped "Brackets" for "Parentheses".

 

[XzarTheMad]

How did you get that the 2 in multiplied into both the 9 and the 3?

I use a rule of math. Don't ask me why, I'm no professor (although I'm sure one of the ones in here would be happy to oblige you), but it goes as follows:

x*(y+z) = (x*y)+(x*z)

 

[Littlee300]

I go on the escapist to procrastinate my math homework.
....
....
....
Anyone who says 2 is a dumbass

How did you get that the 2 in multiplied into both the 9 and the 3?

I use a rule of math. Don't ask me why, I'm no professor (although I'm sure one of the ones in here would be happy to oblige you), but it goes as follows:

x*(y+z) = (x*y)+(x*z)

That is called distributive property.

 

[Frosted89]

I get 288, I can see how people would get 2 though depending on how it's interpreted, however I see the question as this 48/2*(9+3) and seeing the question as that, I get 288.

48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
=288
Gah can't believe I am debating an 8th grade math problem...well, actually, compared to other things that people fuss over this isn't that bad.

 

[XzarTheMad]

I go on the escapist to procrastinate my math homework.
....
....
....
Anyone who says 288 is a dumbass

How did you get that the 2 in multiplied into both the 9 and the 3?

I use a rule of math. Don't ask me why, I'm no professor (although I'm sure one of the ones in here would be happy to oblige you), but it goes as follows:

x*(y+z) = (x*y)+(x*z)

That is called distributive property.

Thanks. Second language and all. I know as much of English math terms as I do Cantonese ones.

 

[Slimshad]

Order of operations is fine and dandy but what if 2 was a coefficient of (9+3). 2*9 and 2*3 is 24. 48 divided by 24 is 2. You see, if the equation was 48/2X, and X = (12), you wouldn't say "alright, lets divide that 42 by the 2 and then multiply that by X (12)."

EDIT: I read it initially as 48 *over* 2(12). My bad. You do it left to right.

 

[Bon_Clay]

I don't see why people are assuming / means everything after is the denominator. When you're not writing by hand that just means divide the preceding term by the following one.

Secondly when a number is right beside stuff in parenthesis, its implied it just mean multiply. That doesn't make it a separate term from the 48 unless you add more brackets in.

I understand what people are interpreting the question as in order to get the other answer, but its my opinion that when written the way it is you would normally use "/" just as "÷". On a keyboard that is the best substitution you have.

 

[thelonewolf266]

288.
I use BOMDAS
(brackets orders multiplication division addition subtraction)
and it has the word "BOMB" in it!

Missing a 'B' there.

Nah he just had the M and the D the wrong way round.

 

[floobie]

This is only causing a stir because it's poorly written. It isn't clever or some "mind-bender" of a problem. It's just ambiguous. So... who cares?

 

[Syntax Error]

288. Stuff inside parentheses are first priority. Multiplication and Division have the same priority, so evaluate from left to right in order of appearance. Same goes with Addition and Subtraction.

 

[Mayki5]

The software I find to hand on the interwebs, re-parses the equation, and actually calculates a different one to what is asked. A sci calculator, should calculate it, exactly as inputted. Mine, for instance gave the answer of 2. Despite, inputting the same equation into various other software, and getting 288.

 

[jp201]

My last attempt in this thread before I give up.

Since there is no visible symbol of multiplication between the 2 and the paranthesis, it MUST be a single entity, 2(9+3). The idea that you must put paranthesis around it holds no weight, as I can just as well say that you must put a paranthesis around 48/2 for the 288 answer to be correct. It's not a matter of poorly written or lacking paranthesis, it's a matter of poor reading comprehension.

Had it been 48/2*(9+3), then it's correct that there is a problem. But, it's not. It's clearly there, in the title. No multiplication symbol. It's a single entity. It must be treated first, resulting in (2*9)+(2*3) = 24, thus making the answer 2. The entire question is based on this. This is THE question. Can you see this? Do you know this? And unless this was a question thought up by a moron in his mom's basement, I can't see any reason this would not be made EXACTLY to test people on this rule, that if you omit a multiplication symbol it's because they're a single entity. Just like 4X = 4*X, but because you treat them as a single entity you omit the multiplication symbol.

Actually, the parenthesis is a clear sign. If there are no other symbols (or a parenthesized portion isn't noticeably used as an exponent), the parenthesis stands for multiplication. Trust me. As someone who has a college degree in math and is working on their PhD. Let's take your 4X = 4*X example, and slightly modify it to 1/4x. Now, as we look at this, it is the same as 1/4 * x, however you are trying to claim it equal to 1/(4x). Because there is not anything to specialize that the x is in the denominator, the default methodology used by mathematicians the world over is that it is multiplied. When you "omit" a multiplication sign, it doesn't make them a single entry. 1/4x = 1/4 * x 1/(4x)

Another way to go about this, is simply substitution. Say that (9+3) = x. Now we have 48/2x = 24x, because nowhere does it say that x is being used to divide, because the mathematical equation is written purely left to write and therefore defaults to multiplication. If this was handwritten as 48/(2x) and someone translated it to 48/2x not realizing what they were doing, then it is an error on their behalf.

I don't claim to be any sort of clever when it comes to math, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the problem at hand. I'll admit, it's not a rule per se. However, in this context I stand by what I say: The lack of a clear multiplication symbol implies that the 2 and the paranthesis are a single entity.

My use of a "rule" was because I don't claim to hold enough relevance or knowledge for people to acknowledge anything I say simply because "I say so". Take it as an attempt to explain something abstract in your second language, in a field of expertise that is not your primary.

With this, I bid you adieu. 6am is probably a bad time to discuss math.

If what he just said apparently went right over your head then please just give up at this point.

for god sakes your quote after reading what he was trying to convey to you "The lack of a clear multiplication symbol implies that the 2 and the paranthesis are a single entity." he just proved with logic that your statement there is false. Yes it is completely relevant to this problem by the way.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

Seems everyone has one of theese, I learnt this one in year 6, BOMDAS Brackets or multiplication (If there is brackets) devision then addition and subtraction. so by my method, it becomes
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
24*12
288

Sorry, but that's wrong. As I pointed out to someone else in my previous post. Your mistake is that you've forgotten that the (12) is still on the bottom of the fraction, and thus your third line should still read 24/12, not 24(12).

What makes you think this is a single fraction? There is nothing in the problem to indicate that. If we translate the problem directly into English, we get "Multiply 48 by the multiplicative inverse of 2 and then multiply by the quantity (9+3)." The division sign only applies to the next term (i.e. 2) and not to everything to the right.

 

[thelonewolf266]

This is only causing a stir because it's poorly written. It isn't clever or some "mind-bender" of a problem. It's just ambiguous. So... who cares?

I'm sorry but generally speaking maths problems can't be ambiguous they follow a set of rules you just need to know the rules.I say generally because I didn't do it at uni and there's quite probably some complicated stuff that comes into it that I know nothing about which could be an exception to that rule.

 

[Conza]

According to BODMAS (Brackets, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction) the answer is 288. I don't see how you can get 2...

48/2 x (9+3)| 48/2 x (12) | 24 x (12) | 288

So incorrectly, some might do... umm BOMDAS?

48/2 x (9+3)| 48/2 x (12) | 48 / 24 | 2

The first example is correct (now to read why 100/240 did theirs wrong).

 

[Fullmetal X]

This is only causing a stir because it's poorly written. It isn't clever or some "mind-bender" of a problem. It's just ambiguous. So... who cares?

Quoted for truth.

It's pretty sad just how heated up some people are getting over this.