Undian topik forum
And the answer is...
|
Pengarang |
Topik: 48÷2(9+3)=??? 2 or 288 |
1376 balasan
|
|
the vote is 216 to 245 right now...
I am honestly very confused now, I still say it is 288. Although I am starting to get doubts. So the basic question:
does: 48÷2(9+3)=48÷2*(9+3)
I say it does.
EDIT: I bet Steven is laughing his ass off that such an innocent little question has turned into a flame war that has more posts than any "xbox 360 vs PS 3" topic :D.
|
|
|
Quote ( Harri Pakosta @ April 15th 2011,21:52:09 )
does: 48÷2(9+3)=48÷2*(9+3)
I say it does.
depends on how u write it. there would be no doubts when this equation would be written on paper :)
|
|
|
Quote ( Harri Pakosta @ April 15th 2011,21:52:09 )
does: 48÷2(9+3)=48÷2*(9+3) Yes (at least that's how I've been taught) Let's do it like this: 48÷2(x+3)=288 II*2 48*(x+3)=576 II÷48 x+3=12 II-3 x=9
Could someone who thinks that 48÷2(9+3)=2 say what I'm doing wrong in there?
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcelo Michelini @ April 15th 2011,21:47:39 )
no, but I studied engineering like 10 years ago, and back then I did :)
well, i have also a degree in engineering and we used mostly mathcad in the old days, back in romania, but i don't remember how the expressions were written there!
in mathematica was no doubt, since the math there looks like on paper! here in germany we used only mathematica, and provided us with really nice fractions to print!
it has also an inline way of writing, but i was never curious how it looks like! :P
|
|
|
The way it was written in the OP:
In basic maths you learn that you expand what is in the bracket first, so you expand 2*(9+3) which equals 24, so the answer is 2. Simples.
(Also, after looking at a few of the earliest posts, BEDMAS and BODMAS can also be called BIDMAS... confusing as to why there are so many deviations when they all mean and do the same thing...)
E: To back up my original theory, the calculation is basically a fraction, so 48/2(9+3), work out the bottom of the fraction and you get 24 as already stated a hundred times, then do 48/24 and you get 2.
|
|
|
Quote ( Peter Holy @ April 15th 2011,21:32:21 )
Removing the bracket is not just 9+3=12, it´s 2(9+3)=2*12=24. The bracket is there for reason and the reason is to multiply ALL terms in bracket by 2. So it´s either 2(9+3)=2*12=24 or 2*9+2*3=18+6=24. And then 48÷24=2
Peter, instead 48÷2x(9+3) solve this equation: 48÷2+(9+3)
|
|
|
Quote ( Harri Pakosta @ April 15th 2011,21:52:09 )
48÷2(9+3)=48÷2*(9+3) that's wrong actually :p you are adding a * that was implicit and with that you are saying "hey, pay attention to this" so groups the prior expression and the result will be different
|
|
|
Quote ( Markus Toivonen @ April 15th 2011,21:57:00 )
Yes (at least that's how I've been taught) Let's do it like this: 48÷2(x+3)=288 II*2 48*(x+3)=576 II÷48 x+3=12 II-3 x=9
Could someone who thinks that 48÷2(9+3)=2 say what I'm doing wrong in there?
we don't know if it looks like 48 _______ 2*(9+3) if so, the answer will be 2. or just
(48/2)*(9+3) which gives us the answer 288.
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcelo Michelini @ April 15th 2011,21:31:34 )
the differentation, once again, is on notation...
I have no idea where I have learnt the tiny notation difference between ÷ and /, but it is in my mind and I have applied it to many things and it works as a notation solution in many quality math softwares so it is not my invention :)
with your equality symbol, you can't make a difference and you need to fill up the formula of brackets, which as far as I can remember, the idea was to simplify how it is written
so again, unless you can provide a simplified solution to write rational numbers in a division in a one line notation, then I will trust my way to write things down and if you can't then the answer is not 288, is C, might be 2 or 288, depending on what notation has learnt the one who wrote the problem
I have said! :)
BTW, I think we both think the answer to this is 288, so now I have no idea why we are arguing over this (trivial) point! :/ :p
|
|
|
the answer is 288 for sure
Quote ( João Monteiro @ April 15th 2011,21:14:50 )
but in this case 48÷2(9+3) number 2 is the only term that we could put on denominator. see this way: 48÷2(9+3)= (removing brackets) 48÷2x12= (changing division by multiplication) 48x0.5x12 = 288
the best explanation to this question :)
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcelo Michelini @ April 15th 2011,21:59:25 )
that's wrong actually :p
so, basically you are saying that 2(9+3) ≠ 2*(9+3)
|
|
|
Quote ( João Monteiro @ April 15th 2011,21:59:20 )
Peter, instead 48÷2x(9+3) solve this equation: 48÷2+(9+3)
36
|
|
|
Quote ( Rafal Celejewski @ April 15th 2011,22:00:27 )
(48/2)*(9+3) which gives us the answer 288. Quote ( Marcelo Michelini @ April 15th 2011,21:59:25 )
you are adding a * that was implicit and with that you are saying "hey, pay attention to this" so groups the prior expression and the result will be different
the "(9+3)" is multiplied by 2, or at least is what I reckon.
|
|
|
Quote ( Rafal Celejewski @ April 15th 2011,22:00:27 )
we don't know if it looks like 48 _______ 2*(9+3) if so, the answer will be 2. or just
(48/2)*(9+3) which gives us the answer 288.
The way it is presented is obviously option 2 here.
Lets face it - this argument will never end as even if there is a definitive answer somewhere in this forum most of us wont bother to read more than the last 5-6 posts :P.
|
|
|
Quote ( Harri Pakosta @ April 15th 2011,22:03:33 )
The way it is presented is obviously option 2 here.
probably, because if it was the first one, it would have additional bracket and would look like [2(9+3)]
so, we fixed it ? :) the answer is 288.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Harri Pakosta @ April 15th 2011,22:03:33 )
Quote ( Rafal Celejewski @ April 15th 2011,22:00:27 )
we don't know if it looks like 48 _______ 2*(9+3) if so, the answer will be 2. or just
(48/2)*(9+3) which gives us the answer 288.
The way it is presented is obviously option 2 here.
No, it´s the option 1 :)
|
|
|
it should look like this:
48*(9+3) _______ 2
not like: Quote ( Harri Pakosta @ April 15th 2011,22:03:33 )
48 _______ 2*(9+3)
|
|
|
Quote ( Ioannis Mikropoulos @ April 15th 2011,21:06:50 )
Thats the answer from MatLab 7.8.0
48/2*(9+3)
ans =
288
this is a software i trust, it is made for professionals in math, and it's not google or some obscure online calculator!
why do we argue anymore? :)
i think we all agree that 2*(...) = 2(...)
|
|
|
Quote ( Peter Holy @ April 15th 2011,22:05:13 )
No, it´s the option 1 :)
rather not, because for option 1 we need 1 extra bracket Quote ( Rafal Celejewski @ April 15th 2011,22:05:12 )
[2(9+3)]
|
|
|
the way things evolve, this topic will never stop =)
|
|
|
Quote ( Peter Holy @ April 15th 2011,22:02:20 )
Quote ( João Monteiro @ April 15th 2011,21:59:20 )
Peter, instead 48÷2x(9+3) solve this equation: 48÷2+(9+3)
36
could you tell us, step by step, how do you end on 36?
|
|
|
Quote ( João Monteiro @ April 15th 2011,22:25:05 )
could you tell us, step by step, how do you end on 36?
48/2 + (9+3) ?
firstly 9+3 = 12 then 48/2 = 24 and we got 24+12=36
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcelo Michelini @ April 15th 2011,19:29:27 )
and if it is the same, why does many softwares (the good ones, not google kind) make different actions for / and ÷ ? well..at work I have 2 different ordinary calculators..on one it is written / on the button, while other has ÷ on the button, while both those buttons do the same - simply divide..:)
why would be ÷ different from / then x should be different from *?
I think that it is only the view of that symbol that changes..not the meaning or the process it does..
lastly, of course the initial equation is written exactly in this way in order not to be so direct..yet I believe that if we can't add any other symbols the answer should be 288..:)
|
|
|
I'm just convinced that
2(9+3) - the multiplication of the 2 precedes the function of the division written before it.
|
|
|
This mathematical expression has only one result: 288
|
|
|
288 wins! hip-hip-hoorayyy! :)
|
|
|
Quote ( Theo Poufinas @ April 15th 2011,22:56:27 )
288 wins! hip-hip-hoorayyy! :)
for the moment!
who knows, maybe some fans of 2 didn't vote and are going to do it later! everything can change at any moment!
or maybe come another answer into action? let's say 4, looks nice and is bigger than 2! and definitely easier to write as 288!
|
|
|
You know what... just a side note here coz I find it funny
"This internet phenomenon exploded on April 7th, 2011"
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293
We all got trolled without knowing ;)
Also there is some clever explanation to both of possible answers included in given article.
|
|
|
Quote ( Cristian Iordache @ April 15th 2011,22:02:14 )
so, basically you are saying that 2(9+3) ≠ 2*(9+3) argh! no... 48÷2(9+3)≠48÷2*(9+3) don't mix natural numbers with rational numbers...
Quote ( Chinmay Dhopate @ April 15th 2011,22:01:21 )
BTW, I think we both think the answer to this is 288, so now I have no idea why we are arguing over this (trivial) point! :/ :p I think it is either 2, or that can't be tell without knowing what notation was used in any case, the answer is not 288!
Quote ( Aleksej Sutkin @ April 15th 2011,22:29:14 )
I think that it is only the view of that symbol that changes..not the meaning or the process it does.. the meaning is the same, a division will always be a division, just describes different things again! if you have a division of rational numbers, how do you write them in a simplified version??
Quote ( Cristian Iordache @ April 15th 2011,22:07:15 )
i think we all agree that 2*(...) = 2(...) of course I agree on that but you can't take apart things that are a full...
|
|
|
Quote ( Slawek Waszkiewicz @ April 15th 2011,23:08:05 ) You know what... just a side note here coz I find it funny
"This internet phenomenon exploded on April 7th, 2011"
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293
We all got trolled without knowing ;)
Also there is some clever explanation included in given article.
damn so we'll have to wait until the math nerds resolve it.. so....288 rullz! :D
|
|