• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

48÷2(9+3) =

Page 32 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

48÷2(9+3) =

  • ?

  • 288

  • 2

Results are only viewable after voting.
Tweak155 said:
You guys can't be serious. So you're saying x/x is just x?

Pretty sure that was the guy's point 🙂
Click to expand...

x/x = 1

Just like 3/3 = 1

2x/x = x though and not 2. You solve for x first before insertion of the value of X. The reason is because you may never know the value of X and in some cases it isn't relevant in the first place. This is higher math stuff. Also, the value of x may be actually a higher order of operations like an exponent value so you can't just pull the 2 away from the x and say the association is clearly mutiplicative because it may not be. So 2x has to be treated as a single term until the value of X can be resolved which is ALWAYS resolved last.

This is why the two equations I mentioned before are not the same equation.

48÷2(9+3) =/= (48÷2x where x = 9+3)

For some I guess it's a hard concept to grasp. Sort of like 0.999... = 1 is hard to grasp for others.

The berkley link for the necro was a huge cop out though if read. The person basically posted it is to ambiguous to solve. That is incorrect. It is poorly written, but the equation from the OP as written, if badly, can be solved. The answer is solved to 288. Those that try to confuse term math with non term math need to learn more math.
 
Last edited:
HumblePie said:
x/x = 1

Just like 3/3 = 1

2x/x = x though and not 2. You solve for x first before insertion of the value of X. The reason is because you may never know the value of X and in some cases it isn't relevant in the first place. This is higher math stuff. Also, the value of x may be actually a higher order of operations like an exponent value so you can't just pull the 2 away from the x and say the association is clearly mutiplicative because it may not be. So 2x has to be treated as a single term until the value of X can be resolved which is ALWAYS resolved last.

This is why the two equations I mentioned before are not the same equation.

48÷2(9+3) =/= (48÷2x where x = 9+3)

For some I guess it's a hard concept to grasp. Sort of like 0.999... = 1 is hard to grasp for others.

The berkley link for the necro was a huge cop out though if read. The person basically posted it is to ambiguous to solve. That is incorrect. It is poorly written, but the equation from the OP as written, if badly, can be solved. The answer is solved to 288. Those that try to confuse term math with non term math need to learn more math.
Click to expand...
Ignoring you inability to do algebra...

The link was done by a professor in mathematics there.
 
brianmanahan said:
ummm....... i think you need to take algebra again.
Click to expand...

haha, sorry was thinking too fast at work today. I made a mess up myself as this was done on the side. I did make a screw up/ 2x/x =2. Because the terms of x cancel out. Scerwed up in my own head.

But still the order I was trying to state was correct. You solve the equation first before resolving for terms which is last. 8x/4x = 2 regardless of what x equals. But if you have the term 8(7)/4(7) that is = 98. You don't cancel out the 7's first as that is not order of operation.
 
I think its been covered that only someone ignorant of math would write it that way given there is in fact more than one way to interpret it.
 
Last edited:
C1 said:
Saw this problem [ie, 48÷2(9+3) = ? ] posted on GLP today.

I suspected correctly that this classic would also be discussed on AT.

If you would follow the guidelines of an HP scientific calculator user guide, then the answer would be "2" (ie, work first from inside the parentheses; I also think that standard high level coding such as FORTRAN or BASIC would perform the same).

However, the real answer seems to be that the result is indeterminate.

There are some real good lessons here (some which I had forgotten):

https://math.berkeley.edu/~gbergman/misc/numbers/ord_ops.html
Click to expand...

Let us take a moment to notice this guy who necro'd this thread.
 
Zeze said:
Let us take a moment to notice this guy who necro'd this thread.
Click to expand...
Let's take another moment to read the brief article written by a math professor that he linked to - an article that says "Zeze is wrong in post #737."
 
Zeze said:
Let us take a moment to notice this guy who necro'd this thread.
Click to expand...


Depending on whether one interprets the expression as (48/2)(9+3) or as 48/(2(9+3)) one gets 288 or 2. There is no standard convention as to which of these two ways the expression should be interpreted, so, in fact, 48/2(9+3) is ambiguous. To render it unambiguous, one should write it either as (48/2)(9+3) or 48/(2(9+3)). This applies, in general, to any expression of the form a/bc : one needs to insert parentheses to show whether one means (a/b)c or a/(bc).
Click to expand...

The cliffs version. Lock damn thread. LOL
 
Bubbleawsome said:
DrPizza said:
Let's take another moment to read the brief article written by a math professor that he linked to - an article that says "Zeze is wrong in post #737."
Click to expand...

Savage 😱
Click to expand...

1385.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top