Simple Math?

[Butter]

Anybody doing any kind of serious math would not write it in such a sloppy format, so the whole debate is kind of pointless.

But I personally got "2". In any math problem, I consider anything after the division sign to ALL be the divisor, so it would be 48 over (2*(9+3)). Obviously, so do about half the people on here and around the internets.

OR I would say quit writing your problems in such a douchey way to allow different interpretations and be clear.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Anybody doing any kind of serious math would not write it in such a sloppy format, so the whole debate is kind of pointless.

But I personally got "2". In any math problem, I consider anything after the division sign to ALL be the divisor, so it would be 48 over (2*(9+3)). Obviously, so do about half the people on here and around the internets.

OR I would say quit writing your problems in such a douchey way to allow different interpretations and be clear.

This.

And what Greg said.

I see this as the language equivalent of substituting homophones for the word you actually mean. Sure, I can make sense of it, but you may not be conveying the information you intended with the correct level of precision.

Or you're just being a douche.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Anybody doing any kind of serious math would not write it in such a sloppy format, so the whole debate is kind of pointless.

But I personally got "2". In any math problem, I consider anything after the division sign to ALL be the divisor, so it would be 48 over (2*(9+3)). Obviously, so do about half the people on here and around the internets.

OR I would say quit writing your problems in such a douchey way to allow different interpretations and be clear.

Doesn't this risk violating order of operations, then?

3/2*2 is obviously very different from 3/(2*2). In the first case, since multiplication and division hold the same precedence, evaluate from left to right. In the second case, the parentheses are clearly evaluated first.

Going back to the original problem, it seems like a bad idea to write 48/2*(9+3) when you mean to write 48/(2*(9+3)). Then again, it also seems like we all agree that the problem is badly written in the first place, although it's apparently done that way on purpose to polarize us and make us think somebody out there is stupid. So, yeah, internet in a nutshell, I guess.

[DanGarion]

According to Wolfram Alpha

288

48/2(9+3) - Wolfram|Alpha

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

Many have probably seen this in the past few weeks as it has been quite popular on the internet, but I have not seen a thread on this here and am curious what this board thinks.

48÷2(9+3) = ???

I said 2, but now that I think about it doesn't the Order of Operations for multiplication and division state you multiply and/or divide from left to right? If so, then it's 288.

[Rizon]

Dola

The correct answer in accounting to this question is "whatever the hell I want it to be". So being an accountant, I'm going with that one.

[terpkristin]

42

/tk

[Marc Vaughan]

48÷2(9+3) = ??

BODMAS = Binary, Operator, Divide, Multiply, Addition, Subtraction

Hence write it long hand:
48 / 2 x ( 9 + 3 )
Brackets first =
48 / 2 x 12
Divide Next
24 x 12
Multiply Next
288

At least thats how a computer would undertake it; personally I'd say any coder who wrote an equation like that needs shooting - as its not instantly clear what it'll do and bracketing takes 2 minutes to do and makes reading equations FAR simpler.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

48÷2(9+3) = ??

BODMAS = Binary, Operator, Divice, Multiply, Addition, Subtraction

I think where a lot of people were hung up was that the correct way to say this is Binary, Operator, Divide and/or Multiply left to right, Addition and/or Subtraction left to right. So it's really BODAOML2RAAOSL2R

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

personally I'd say any coder who wrote an equation like that needs shooting - as its not instantly clear what it'll do and bracketing takes 2 minutes to do and makes reading equations FAR simpler.

I think this is my final answer, too. It's unsolvable because of the lack of brackets. 2(9+3) doesn't necessarily mean 2*(9+3), so it's left to the interpretation of the reader. I can see an argument for both 2 and 288 because of that.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Rizon

I think this is my final answer, too. It's unsolvable because of the lack of brackets. 2(9+3) doesn't necessarily mean 2*(9+3), so it's left to the interpretation of the reader. I can see an argument for both 2 and 288 because of that.

If 2(9+3) doesn't necessarily mean 2*(9+3), what else could it mean?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

If 2(9+3) doesn't necessarily mean 2*(9+3), what else could it mean?

(2*(9+3)) is how I initially thought of it as.

[Rizon]

It's a trick question that can't be answered unless you assume something. Basically a troll math question to divert nerds attentions away from the Death Star long enough to set up a trap.

[BillJasper]

I came up with 288.

[heardie]

Really, 2 pages? Come on...

There is obivously no correct, cannonical, answer to this. The question, as stated is ambigious.

Getting google,yahoo or whatever to calculate is useless, as it just depends on the algorithm they use to intepert your input.

Edit: Aggh, see this has been dormant for a few days. Hope I don't awaken the beast...

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by heardie

Really, 2 pages? Come on...

There is obivously no correct, cannonical, answer to this. The question, as stated is ambigious.

Getting google,yahoo or whatever to calculate is useless, as it just depends on the algorithm they use to intepert your input.

Edit: Aggh, see this has been dormant for a few days. Hope I don't awaken the beast...

Buzzkill. Would you mind stepping into some other threads and telling us how many pages the topic warrants? Thanks in advance.

[Passacaglia]

So is 2 pages too many or too few? Are you saying that since it's ambiguous, we should be arguing about it more, or that since it's ambiguous, we should all check the 'no answer' box and move on?

That said, personally, I hope you *do* awaken the beast.

[albionmoonlight]

I voted 2 b/c that was my gut instinct.

But, having read this thread, I think that I would change to either "trout" or "288."

[Raiders Army]

Between this and Beyonce's Run the World which has a line that says "Who run the world?" numerous times, I weep for the United States. We can't do simple math and we can't speak correctly.

[Johninja]

I just don't see how this type of mathematics would be relevant in a real life situation. Trout.