48÷2 (9+3) argument

[Rosaudio]

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

?

48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
48/(24)
=2

?

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

?

So which is it?

 

[marine1]

Based on the OP = 288

 

[ponder]

So which is it?

If you work from left to right as you should the answer will always be 288. Multiplication & division have the same priority so i would say stick with the left to right operation.

 

[nakedpeanut]

Look if some one gave me 48/2(9+3) to implement in a program I would implement it as
48/(2(9+3)) as 2 is associated with the brackets when I read it..
But if you gave me 48/2*(9+3) then I would assign it as is to a varialbe and that would give 288.

You guys all moan about adding brackets, yet you adding a * which also changes the algorithm.
Both answers are valid I just depends on your school of thought IMO...

 

[marine1]

Look if some one gave me 48/2(9+3) to implement in a program I would implement it as
48/(2(9+3)) as 2 is associated with the brackets when I read it..
But if you gave me 48/2*(9+3) then I would assign it as is to a varialbe and that would give 288.

You guys all moan about adding brackets, yet you adding a * which also changes the algorithm.
Both answers are valid I just depends on your school of thought IMO...

Nope they are quite clearly different.
By including it in the brackets you are changing the whole equation.
By default the OP clearly states, 48/2(9+3) - where 2 * (9+3)

 

[SLAQ]

I get 2.

Take 48/2sin(x), no-one gonna say it is sin(x) but rather 24/sin(x). so just replace sin(x) with (9+3) again and you'll get 2.

 

[S1ght]

The sum is ambiguous... move on with life

 

[Nothxkbi]

This sum makes no sense. BODMAS sure, but there is a missing operator. It's a broken equation.

Edit: Feel like I've just been trolled softly somehow :-\

 

[ponder]

Look if some one gave me 48/2(9+3) to implement in a program I would implement it as
48/(2(9+3)) as 2 is associated with the brackets when I read it..
But if you gave me 48/2*(9+3) then I would assign it as is to a varialbe and that would give 288.

You guys all moan about adding brackets, yet you adding a * which also changes the algorithm.
Both answers are valid I just depends on your school of thought IMO...

You can't add brackets to suite your needs. X . * however are implicitly implied.

If I wrote 2Xa, 2.a or 2*a it means exact the same as 2a. This is what you were taught in school, is it not?

Adding X . * does not change the equation, adding brackets however does change the equation.

 

[satanboy]

This sum makes no sense. BODMAS sure, but there is a missing operator. It's a broken equation.
...

so you say the question is in error?

 

[marine1]

You can't add brackets to suite your needs. X . * however are implicitly implied.

If I wrote 2Xa, 2.a or 2*a it means exact the same as 2a. This is what you were taught in school, is it not?

Adding X . * does not change the equation, adding brackets however does change the equation.

Exactly

 

[Nothxkbi]

so you say the question is in error?

Yes. The laws of mathematics are sound. In OP's equation, there is a missing operator. I'm not sure whether this was deliberate but I'm off the opinion this equation in itself has been sourced from /b/

If you break an equation, you leave yourself open to an infinite number of possibilities. This thread could reach 1000 pages and it will not be solved.

Entertaining thread, but you've all been trolled mybb.

 

[Honswaggle]

i cant believe this discussion has gone on for 9 pages!

 

[Diesal]

with my CASIO ƒx-82ES PLUS i get 2, Google vs Casio; ill go with my CASIO

Did you use the brackets properly, cause sometimes it messes up

and I think 288 is right based on BODMAS
If any1 were to write 2 in a primary school exam, you would be wrong

 

[milomak]

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


or

48/2
-------
9+3


Clearly the person who first posed it knew the ambiguity it can possibly present.

My take is that do not assume brackets are meant to be there when in fact they are not present. so the answer becomes 2.

edit - and thinking about it. bodmas (or bomdas depending on how you were thought) merely says that using brackets means you want what's inside multipled by the number outside if there is no mathematical sign seperating the bracket from the number. It does not say add a bracket. Thus adding a bracket around (48/2) means you are changing the problem presented to you.

in the same way that : 2+4x6÷3-1

says do the multiplication and division first in a left to right manner. it doesn't say add a bracket.
thus 4x6÷3 becomes 8

and we are reduced to 2+8-1

and then to this problem as written. it is 48 divided by a divisor. if you are going to add a bracket. then it should be 48÷(2)9+3)). That is the most logical way of reading the problem.

so the answer is definitely 2

edit2 - to further add, this seems to me to be a similar thing to http://www.riddlenut.com/gryriddle.php. More that it is a riddle that is meant to throw people down the wrong path.

Hence why the Casio is not wrong. Can't actually believe people were willing to think that one of the world's top calculatir makers made a mistake when it comes to this.

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

Yes. The laws of mathematics are sound. In OP's equation, there is a missing operator. I'm not sure whether this was deliberate but I'm off the opinion this equation in itself has been sourced from /b/

If you break an equation, you leave yourself open to an infinite number of possibilities. This thread could reach 1000 pages and it will not be solved.

Entertaining thread, but you've all been trolled mybb.

NIce comment. I posted this problem on another forum and got a similar but not so eloquent answer.

 

[Cube3]

School was a loong time ago for me...

But if I remember the graph equations...

2(3+2) is the same as 2*3 + 2*2

With brackets you always assumed * unless there was an + , - , /

 

[NeonNinja]

288.

 

[bekdik]

It should be interpreted as

48/2(9+3) = (48/2)*(9+3) = (24)*(12) = 288

 

[Ekstasis]

Some of you must really have some screwed up monthly budgets.....

288