48÷2(9+3) = ??? -- VOTE!! Poll Added

[jbhofmann]

The real question is, what does Chris Levy think about this?

 

[Matsuicollector]

IF you are following the order of operations the way it is intended to be followed the answer is 288. People always think that because multiplication comes before division in "PEMDAS" that multiplication always comes before division. In reality, multiplication and division are TIED in terms of which operation is more important to do next. If both occur within the same expression you are supposed to do them in left-to-right order to break the tie. I teach my 5th graders this every year.

Wow look who is smarter then a Fifth Grader :lol:
Ok now do these
Paper or Plastic :?:
Chicken or the Egg :?:

It's obvious that the egg came before the chicken. At some point in evolutionary history there had to be a divergence between what is now recognized as a chicken and what species came before it. A change in the genome is the only way evolution proceeds. Since the genetic change separating the chicken from it's predecessor occurs during the formation of gametes and subsequent fertilization, which culminates into the formation of the egg, the pre-chicken thus laid the egg that became the first currently recognized species of chicken. While the separation between the birth of a new species is not simply this cut and dry, given evolution, it can only be that the egg came before the chicken. A chicken can not pop out of thin air and lay and egg to create more chickens.

 

[smapdi]

That's a relief. I'm in the >25 segment, and was (and still am) really good at math, and I thought it was 2 also. I dredged up PEMDAS from my memory banks, but had literally no recollection of the PE,MD,AS arrangement that some people describe. I am glad to learn that I haven't lost that knowledge, but instead never had it. So I guess I can blame the schools.

And there's no way to be sure about the chicken/egg question. Did an animal that was not a chicken produce a calcium shell that could be called a chicken egg, which then contained a chicken? Or was a non-chicken-egg egg laid by a non-chicken animal that contained a chicken, which then went on to produce a chicken-egg egg?

 

[kdailey4315]

The real question is, what does Chris Levy think about this?

The answer is clearly 2 because that ahole Obama took the 286 and gave them to the lazy ass poor people leaving him with only 2. That socialists *****.

 

[thefatguy]

My math degree says 288. Multiplication and division are equals in order of operations as are addition and substraction. Division is multiplication of an inverse and subtraction is addition of a negative.

The formula 48÷2(9+3) can be rewritten as 48x(1/2)(9+3) by substituting x(1/2) for ÷2. And 48 x 0.5 x 12 = 288.

Not sure how it get much simpler than this. Always best to make everything all add or multiply, thus cutting out all of the 5th grade math jargon.

x = 48
. . . 2 (9+3)

(9+3)x = 48/2

12x = 24

x=2

 

[thelesquad]

I'm over 25. I was excellent in math. Never made anything but an A, including college calculus courses and differential equations. Finished second in a state calculus competition in high school. Made a five on my AP calculus test. And I came up with 288 not using implied multiplication.

 

[IndyManning18]

I'm proud to be in the lower percentile that says 288.

 

[thefatguy]

I'm proud to be in the lower percentile that says 288.

Thats ok, Jeff.....you think Obama got elected because he was black

 

[IndyManning18]

I'm proud to be in the lower percentile that says 288.

Thats ok, Jeff.....you think Obama got elected because he was black

And I wasn't wrong about that one either.

 

[pigskincardboard]

My math degree says 288. Multiplication and division are equals in order of operations as are addition and substraction. Division is multiplication of an inverse and subtraction is addition of a negative.

The formula 48÷2(9+3) can be rewritten as 48x(1/2)(9+3) by substituting x(1/2) for ÷2. And 48 x 0.5 x 12 = 288.

So you're not classifying (9+3) as the denominator? It seems strange to view it as (48/2)*((9+3)/1) rather than 48/((2x)+(2y))

Mind you, we were also taught BEDMAS rather than this PEDMAS you speak of.

 

[MacK]

Order of Operations, bro.

 

[RL24]

I'm over 25. I was excellent in math. Never made anything but an A, including college calculus courses and differential equations. Finished second in a state calculus competition in high school. Made a five on my AP calculus test. And I came up with 288 not using implied multiplication.

That makes me feel better about my vote for 288. YaY for me!


For a minute there I was starting to wonder, because this makes sense to me:

Parenthese first you are right, which means Completely get rid of the Parenthese, and the only way to do that is to multiply the 2.....basic math!!!!

 

[jbhofmann]

I'm amazed that after being proven wrong, people still claim the answer is 2.

This was done by a 4th grader.

 

[thelesquad]

I'm over 25. I was excellent in math. Never made anything but an A, including college calculus courses and differential equations. Finished second in a state calculus competition in high school. Made a five on my AP calculus test. And I came up with 288 not using implied multiplication.

That makes me feel better about my vote for 288. YaY for me!


For a minute there I was starting to wonder, because this makes sense to me:

Parenthese first you are right, which means Completely get rid of the Parenthese, and the only way to do that is to multiply the 2.....basic math!!!!

That was a good thought process, but the parentheses part of PEMDAS ahould only refer to calculations inside the parentheses, not implied multiplication.

 

[UMich92]

My math degree says 288. Multiplication and division are equals in order of operations as are addition and substraction. Division is multiplication of an inverse and subtraction is addition of a negative.

The formula 48÷2(9+3) can be rewritten as 48x(1/2)(9+3) by substituting x(1/2) for ÷2. And 48 x 0.5 x 12 = 288.

So you're not classifying (9+3) as the denominator? It seems strange to view it as (48/2)*((9+3)/1) rather than 48/((2x)+(2y))

Mind you, we were also taught BEDMAS rather than this PEDMAS you speak of.

That is correct. If it were written 48÷(2(9+3)) then I would consider the (9+3) as part of the denominator. To me this comes down to a sloppily written formula. There should be an operator symbol between the 2 and the (. I believe it is correct to assume multiplication and rewrite the formula as 48÷2x(9+3). Evaluate inside the parentheses first resulting in 48÷2x12. Then since the remaining operations are all multiplication and division (which are the same), the formula is evaluated left to right.

 

[TomMurry]

Multiple math teachers and professors have confirmed the "true" answer is 288. Why is this discussion still ongoing?

 

[TBTwinsFan]

Multiple math teachers and professors have confirmed the "true" answer is 288. Why is this discussion still ongoing?

Probably because this idiot (me) got the answer right.

I thought that it was a given rule that (example) 2(3) = 2 x 3. I never knew that it was assumed and not mandatory.

Math teacher fail?

 

[thelesquad]

Multiple math teachers and professors have confirmed the "true" answer is 288. Why is this discussion still ongoing?

Probably because this idiot (me) got the answer right.

I thought that it was a given rule that (example) 2(3) = 2 x 3. I never knew that it was assumed and not mandatory.

Math teacher fail?

2(3) = 2x3

But...

2(3) does not necessarily equal (2x3)

 

[rehmus]

I'm amazed that after being proven wrong, people still claim the answer is 2.

This was done by a 4th grader.

proven wrong? the answer is that the problem is lacking a set of parentheses. if you accept implied multiplication then the answer is 2. if you are strictly sticking to the old-school PEMDAS the answer is 288. no one has been proven wrong.

seriously people, go read the explanation on knowyourmeme.

 

[jbhofmann]

Multiple math teachers and professors have confirmed the "true" answer is 288. Why is this discussion still ongoing?

Probably because this idiot (me) got the answer right.

I thought that it was a given rule that (example) 2(3) = 2 x 3. I never knew that it was assumed and not mandatory.

Math teacher fail?

2(3) = 2x3

But...

2(3) does not necessarily equal (2x3)

stop.