That still leaves the question of whether to follow the convention of parenthetical multiplication first or not. That rule may or may not be fading due to increased usage of calculators and computers. Transforming the problem changes the fraction.
As I've stated numerous times, the original problem that sparked the controversy would likely have had a fully written out fraction that would have made the whole thing very clear.
EDIT: I think you're trying to distribute across division. Take a look at the distributive rule. 1(1/2) is not the same thing as 2(9+3). And if you're going to continue arguing about distribution, READ THE THREAD. PARTICULARLY THIS BIT HEURR
Then if you still don't get it read the next two pages of this thread.
Ok 1(1/2) = 1(.5) = .5 = 1/2
And 2(9+3) = 18+6 OR 2(12) = 24
I don't get what you think I'm doing wrong. I already told you the logic I used on the 4/(1/2) was crap. It's the same logic people are using to justify 288.
That still leaves the question of whether to follow the convention of parenthetical multiplication first or not. That rule may or may not be fading due to increased usage of calculators and computers. Transforming the problem changes the fraction.
As I've stated numerous times, the original problem that sparked the controversy would likely have had a fully written out fraction that would have made the whole thing very clear.
It's clear as it is. You people just can't seem to follow a simple syntax...
EDIT: I think you're trying to distribute across division. Take a look at the distributive rule. 1(1/2) is not the same thing as 2(9+3). And if you're going to continue arguing about distribution, READ THE THREAD. PARTICULARLY THIS BIT HEURR
Then if you still don't get it read the next two pages of this thread.
Ok 1(1/2) = 1(.5) = .5 = 1/2
And 2(9+3) = 18+6 OR 2(12) = 24
I don't get what you think I'm doing wrong. I already told you the logic I used on the 4/(1/2) was crap. It's the same logic people are using to justify 288.
That has nothing to do with the problem we're talking aobut and everything to do with why multiplication and division are weighted differently.
As far as the problem I've got to say I was wrong or better yet only half right. It can be 2 If the denominator of 48 is 2x(9+3) or it can be 288 is the denominator of 48 is only 2. So in all honesty the only ones wrong are those saying there is one answer also if you say it is 2 because you think pemdas says to multiply first. I'm sorry you have the one of the right answers but for the wrong reason. You got lucky but thats it.
As far as the problem I've got to say I was wrong or better yet only half right. It can be 2 If the denominator of 48 is 2/(9+3) or it can be 288 is the denominator of 48 is only 2. So in all honesty the only ones wrong are those saying there is one answer also if you say it is 2 because you think pemdas says to multiply first. I'm sorry you have the one of the right answers but for the wrong reason. You got lucky but thats it.
There is only 1 answer. It's the retards that can't follow proper syntax that can't get it.
As far as the problem I've got to say I was wrong or better yet only half right. It can be 2 If the denominator of 48 is 2/(9+3) or it can be 288 is the denominator of 48 is only 2. So in all honesty the only ones wrong are those saying there is one answer also if you say it is 2 because you think pemdas says to multiply first. I'm sorry you have the one of the right answers but for the wrong reason. You got lucky but thats it.
There is only 1 answer. It's the retards that can't follow proper syntax that can't get it.
GG hoss. you're *** blocking just like the dude above you was.
Think about this in the larger perspective and you'll see why the problem arose in the first place. Which is frankly the more interesting question to begin with.
I thought that at first to if you read my posts prior to that one I went on a rant about people not knowing how to use Pemdas.
The thing is if the problem is like this.
It's 2.
but if it's like this
it's 288.
The problem with this problem is that the notation is absolute ***lol. No one in higher math would use this symbol. ÷
If it were written:
48÷(2(9+3))
48÷(2(12))
48÷(2*12)
48÷24
=2
But it's not written like that which is what people don't seem to get.
what you don't seem to get is because of convention, different calculators will get different answers. calculators are supposed to be masters of OOO.
Then your problem is that you're relying on your calculator to much. I'm sorry to tell you, but it's true. If your calculator came up with the wrong answer, then you used it wrong or you read the question wrong.
If it were written:
48÷(2(9+3))
48÷(2(12))
48÷(2*12)
48÷24
=2
But it's not written like that which is what people don't seem to get.
what you don't seem to get is because of convention, different calculators will get different answers. calculators are supposed to be masters of OOO.
Then your problem is that you're relying on your calculator to much. I'm sorry to tell you, but it's true. If your calculator came up with the wrong answer, then you used it wrong or you read the question wrong.
Also I've put this into 4 different computer languages and they all get it right (288).
I'm not going back through why its the case again. Think about how a faction is resolved on one line in a calculator. If you can understand the difficulty in displaying a faction on one line, you can see why a person entering this into a calculator can get it wrong. If you want a simple answer to the problem then there you go, you have it. If you want to know how to avoid making mistakes in the furture, then think about its broader implications. You know what you're looking for when you enter a calculation in a calculator. The calculator doesn't.
It should have been written as a fraction 48 / 2(9+3) flipped horizontal
48
________ = 2
2(9+3)
Yes that would have stopped all argument and this thread wouldn't have had to be made. Since it's impossible to tell what the denominator is with this symbol no one can give a solid answer.
If it were written:
48÷(2(9+3))
48÷(2(12))
48÷(2*12)
48÷24
=2
But it's not written like that which is what people don't seem to get.
what you don't seem to get is because of convention, different calculators will get different answers. calculators are supposed to be masters of OOO.
Then your problem is that you're relying on your calculator to much. I'm sorry to tell you, but it's true. If your calculator came up with the wrong answer, then you used it wrong or you read the question wrong.
I really can't be bothered to go find the pic, but somebody put the equation as written into four different calculators. Two said 288, the other two said 2. I can tell you that entering 48/2(9+3) gives 288 via Google's calculator, but 2 on my Casio. If I knew where my TI-89 was right off hand I'd go find it and see what it said for shiggles.
There is no error. Neither answer is wrong given the ambiguous syntax.
If it were written:
48÷(2(9+3))
48÷(2(12))
48÷(2*12)
48÷24
=2
But it's not written like that which is what people don't seem to get.
what you don't seem to get is because of convention, different calculators will get different answers. calculators are supposed to be masters of OOO.
Then your problem is that you're relying on your calculator to much. I'm sorry to tell you, but it's true. If your calculator came up with the wrong answer, then you used it wrong or you read the question wrong.
I really can't be bothered to go find the pic, but somebody put the equation as written into four different calculators. Two said 288, the other two said 2. I can tell you that entering 48/2(9+3) gives 288 via Google's calculator, but 2 on my Casio. If I knew where my TI-89 was right off hand I'd go find it and see what it said for shiggles.
There is no error. Neither answer is wrong given the ambiguous syntax.
I got too wrapped up in trying to handle two arguments at once to succintly say that for the fifth time, thanks for helping out.