CoolWhip Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 I think I have a new sig line Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 the notation sucks ballsthe problem you posted is 288, according to a computer; my common sense math said 2, but that's because I read it as Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gump Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 Who uses this knowledge to make money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaNick Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 I don't understand what you don't get about the problem, it is pretty simple really. I don't get what you don't understand about FUCK YOU! Yes, I'm wrong, but I'm sure many of the followers here that didn't post up their answer would realize that they too thought it was 2. If I was the only one this wouldn't be such a big thing going around the internet. I failed! But, like gump said...who cares. I did, until I was wrong!Eat it assholes!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyler524 Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 I don't get what you don't understand about FUCK YOU! Yes, I'm wrong, but I'm sure many of the followers here that didn't post up their answer would realize that they too thought it was 2. If I was the only one this wouldn't be such a big thing going around the internet. I failed! But, like gump said...who cares. I did, until I was wrong!Eat it assholes!! Haha don't feel bad, 4 enginerds that I work with got it wrong too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 Who uses this knowledge to make money?Me:oSad but true we are not very good at math in the US. If this was being used in a laboratory equation I would want the equation written as [(X/y)(z+n)] just to avoid the logical process issues.I mean who laughs when NASA wastes a Billion dollar Satillite into the surface of Mars because someone forgot to convert ft to meters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 This is why God made scientific calculators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottb Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 I did not read any posts, but i would have say the answer is 2. Woking inside the lil bracket things first 9 plus 3=12. The multiply 12 x 2 (which is the number outside of the lil braket things) equals 24. so, 48 divided by 24 = 2.I am probably wrong, since there is probably some rule in math like the I before E except after C thing,but I really just wanted to say "lil bracket things" instead of wasting time typing parenthesis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 Nick isn't necessarily wrong. It depends on what the original author intended. I've seen it plenty of times where brackets here would be implied:48÷[2(9+3)] or 48÷((2*9)+(2*3))Writing it like 48/2(9+3) also can cause problems, because it often gets interpreted as: 48-------- as in anything to the right of the divisor is a part of the denominator. 2(9+3)What's missing is context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shittygsxr Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 Nick isn't necessarily wrong. It depends on what the original author intended. I've seen it plenty of times where brackets here would be implied:48÷[2(9+3)] or 48÷((2*9)+(2*3))Writing it like 48/2(9+3) also can cause problems, because it often gets interpreted as: 48-------- as in anything to the right of the divisor is a part of the denominator. 2(9+3)What's missing is context.you better get started telling every math teacher your new math rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) you better get started telling every math teacher your new math rules.Not my rules. My math teacher was good enough to explain these situations, sorry yours wasn't.If you go into that other thread linked to the physics forum they mention purplemath.com, another site and a reference to an engineering math book or something that have these and there are plenty of others. It's too ambiguous.TI Implied Mathhttp://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm Edited April 11, 2011 by fusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyler524 Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 you better get started telling every math teacher your new math rules.Ha no shit I should tried that line in school on a test or hw. I would say it is what it is unless otherwise stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisknight Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) It's a malformed equation. It doesn't have an answer.edit: btw, I would have said.... 2 Edited April 11, 2011 by ReconRat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alienpi Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) I think it's 231, for large values of 2. Edited April 12, 2011 by alienpi Added picture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadyone Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 2.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaNick Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 Not my rules. My math teacher was good enough to explain these situations, sorry yours wasn't.If you go into that other thread linked to the physics forum they mention purplemath.com, another site and a reference to an engineering math book or something that have these and there are plenty of others. It's too ambiguous.TI Implied Mathhttp://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm It's a malformed equation. It doesn't have an answer.edit: btw, I would have said.... 22....I heart you guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicked Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 Potato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSVDon Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 If I were to get this on a test, I would crumble it up and toss it in the prof's face for being such a retard while setting up the problem. The issue is not how to do the problem, it's how the problem was set up (poorly I might add) in the first place.2... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted April 11, 2011 Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) Try simplify to get rid of the 2:482x12divide by 2 over 2 (one)or multiply by .5 over .5 (one)2412=2 Edited April 11, 2011 by ReconRat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted April 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2011 It's a malformed equation. It doesn't have an answer.edit: btw, I would have said.... 2 It's formed perfectly fine.Try simplify to get rid of the 2:482x12divide by 2 over 2 (one)or multiply by .5 over .5 (one)2412=2482(9+3) is not the same as 48÷2(9+3)(48/2)*(9+3) is the same as 48÷2(9+3) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSVDon Posted April 12, 2011 Report Share Posted April 12, 2011 It's formed perfectly fine.No, no it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted April 12, 2011 Report Share Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) (48/2)*(9+3) implies an operand that wasn't there(48/2)*(9+3) is the same as (48÷2)(9+3)the issue is that 48÷2(9+3) has two answersedit: two possible answers when using calculatorsI tend to believe only one answer when using a pencil Edited April 12, 2011 by ReconRat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alienpi Posted April 12, 2011 Report Share Posted April 12, 2011 ...the issue is that 48÷2(9+3) has one answerI fixed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted April 12, 2011 Report Share Posted April 12, 2011 That's a lot of search results. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.