199 réponses à ce sujet

[Ponce de Leon]

But there's still the rule "Always ELIMINATE (not change, not make it disappear or whatnot) the parenthesis first"

Edit :
And in fact, even if you divide it per two first, then it's still :
24
---
1*12
which is still 2. You cannot move one piece to the other side just like that. 48 is X, 2(9+3) is Y*Z. And even if you make X/Y first, you cannot move Z up. It will never be X'*Z, it can only be X'/Z

Modifié par dark-lauron, 08 avril 2011 - 03:35 .

[TheMufflon]

mousestalker wrote...

I now despair for the future of the human race.

Are you all happy now?

No, I'm scared. The fact that so many people dogmatically cling to their ideas without actually bothering to find out whether they are correct scares me.

[Daewan]

To quote Math Is Fun: "Calculate them in the wrong order, and you will get a wrong answer. So, long ago people agreed to follow rules when doing calculations." That order would be PEMDAS. Don't argue with the order unless you want the joy of failing a math class (or looking silly on the Internet). Follow the rules and nobody gets hurt.

[Godak]

People! I found something beautiful.

Put the problem in here.

EDIT: Pssst! It agrees with me.

Modifié par Godak, 08 avril 2011 - 03:38 .

[Rose of Mars]

People! This is 4th grade math! C'mon!

FIRST: Solve the (9+3). You will end with 48/2*12

Remember: theres a multiplication signal implied between the 2 and the (9+3). Now that we solved the parenthesis part, we solve the expression the normal way. which is... always solve these operations from the LEFT.

Don't believe me? Wolfram Alpha's site. A REAL mathematician's site, not the "almighty" flawed Google calculator we are so dependent.

http://www.wolframal...ut/?i=48÷2(9+3)

[TheMufflon]

Godak wrote...

People! I found something beautiful.

Put the problem in here.

EDIT: Pssst! It agrees with me.

You found a cheap knock-off of WolframAlpha. And no, it does not agree with you. Enter the expression as written in the OP, not your own faulty interpretation of it.

[Daewan]

Ah, the curse of unbounded operators.
48÷(2(9+3))
is not the same expression as
48÷2(9+3)
which should really be written as (48÷2)(9+3) but this is a math trick question.

[ejoslin]

* gah, never mind

Modifié par ejoslin, 08 avril 2011 - 03:54 .

[Godak]

TheMufflon wrote...

Enter the expression as written in the OP, not your own faulty interpretation of it.

I am. The parantheses are essentially 'attached' to the two. You cannot simply remove them.

[TheMufflon]

Godak wrote...

I am. The parantheses are essentially 'attached' to the two. You cannot simply remove them.

They're not "attached". There's just an implied multiplication sign between them, which will be resolved after the division, as it is to the right of it.

[NeroSparda]

TheMufflon wrote...

Godak wrote...

I am. The parantheses are essentially 'attached' to the two. You cannot simply remove them.

They're not "attached". There's just an implied multiplication sign between them, which will be resolved after the division, as it is to the right of it.

If it really is implied the 24 would had multiplied with 9, then the add the 3 for the sum of 219, which is wrong.

[TheMufflon]

NeroSparda wrote...

If it really is implied the 24 would had multiplied with 9, then the add the 3 for the sum of 219, which is wrong.

No, because there is a parenthesis.

[NeroSparda]

TheMufflon wrote...

NeroSparda wrote...

If it really is implied the 24 would had multiplied with 9, then the add the 3 for the sum of 219, which is wrong.

No, because there is a parenthesis.

That I know, though it seems I misunderstood what you said about implied multiplication.

[Godak]

Question: why are we solving this?

No, really, is it like, a homework problem?

...Or are we being trolled?

[Rose of Mars]

Godak wrote...

Question: why are we solving this?

No, really, is it like, a homework problem?

...Or are we being trolled?

I think it was a legitimate question that "some" of us turned into an ego battle.

[NeroSparda]

Answer: We are bored and have nothing better to do at the moment.

[Nightodie]

Godak wrote...

Question: why are we solving this?

No, really, is it like, a homework problem?

...Or are we being trolled?

We are definitely taking a small math question way too seriously.

[Godak]

NeroSparda wrote...

Answer: We are bored and have nothing better to do at the moment.

I was just trying to relax before my Bio test. Speaking of which...

You guys all have fun, I guess.

[Madame November]

Fine. I'll ask Mr. N. If he'll answer his phone.

[Pacifien]

*gasps at the people who answered 288*

[Madame November]

288

He is right if anyone is.  He also says this is a deceptive way to write the problem and could have been meant the other way but technically it is 288.

Modifié par Madame November, 08 avril 2011 - 04:16 .

[TheMufflon]

Strangely Brown wrote...

You can rewrite the question like this and it means the same thing:

48/2 x 1/(9+3)

Nope.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 08 avril 2011 - 04:11 .

[RainyDayLover]

Jesus, people

I think the confusion lies within how it's worded (in particular, how the division sign is implied)


Is it :

48                           48
----             =          ------    =    2
2(9+3)                    24


OR


48                                 48
----  x (9+3)      =         ------ x 12         =      24 x 12   =    288 
 2                                    2