Pepsi, thats a completely different equation. The equation you entered does not take into account the fact that the 2 in 2(9+3) is distributed to the 9 and the 3. It is not 48/2 x (9+3). It is 48 divided by the overall product of 2(9+3)
That's a horrible way to write the equation, precisely because of the ambiguity it produces. I haven't seen that symbol for division since the 5th grade.
^^^ i think leaving out the actual multiplication symbol might be producing the ambiguity? 48/2*(9+3) seems more straightforward? 48, divided by 2, then multiplied by (9+3), equals 288 to get 2 you need more brackets: 48/(2*(9+3)), that is, 48, divided by (2 multiplied by (9+3)), equals 2
http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=mfahTaHzM4-0hAeV2uyKBQ now let's close this stupid fucking thread... i'm fed up on seeing mathematics on a sunday afternoon.
I think that's a pretty standard way to express the multiplication of a term by the product of a parenthesis. Someone could fuck it up by multiplying the 2 (I can't think of the proper name for this action). But like, say if the terms within the parenthesis couldn't be combined. 2(x+3) You'd end up with 2x+6. It seems like some people did 2(9+3) 18+6 24 But that is incorrect since the terms within the parenthesis can be simplified, but you don't really need an actual multiplication symbol to show that.
appearantly math has changed since I was in elementary school and learned this shit. How does that happen? when I was in school it was pretty simple. 2(9+3) is 18 +6. If the rules have changed since I've been in school, can someone explain why and how that happened and what the new rules are? even if you simplify it, you still get the same thing. 2(9+3)=2(12)=24
yeah, but it seems to be rendering people mathless, so i thought perhaps that it might clarify things to throw an * in there while typing i realized the real problem for some was with the missing brackets that they thought were there no accounting for illusion
except, it's not supposed to be simplified it's 48, first divided by 2, then multiplied by (9+3) which is why i think adding the multiplying sign clarifies the damn thing [/thread]
so is PEMDAS not used anymore? Because according to PEMDAS, the parenthesis would be done first, not the division. Even if the parenthesis was not done first, the division would not be done before the multiplication, according to PEMDAS. i'll say it again. this math equation sucks.
do the parenthesis first, still comes out the same, the only thing in a parenthesis is 9+3 48/2*12 48, divided by 2, times 12 get some sleep
Operations within parenthesis always come first. After that, the way the equation is written, I would divide before I multiplied. The way I was taught, addition=subtraction, multiplication=division, so when you are looking for the proper order to finish the equation and your only two steps left are to divide and multiply, since they carry the same precedence you go from left to right. Sorry my explanation is really sloppy I can't express myself correctly. EX - 12÷2x2 6X2 12 not 12÷2x2 12÷4 3
i'm quite well rested, thanks. The way I was taught, when an equation is written 2(9+3), that is all considered part of the parenthesis, and the multiplication is done first, therefore 2x9 +2x3. I was educated in south carolina, but damn..I still think you 288 fuckers are wrong
48/2(9+3) is not the same as 48/(2(9+3)) the first produces 288, the second produces 2 in the first, original equation, the 2 is not in parentheses so takes no precedence - do the 9+3 and proceed from left to right and if you're not going to take a nap, then dammit, i am
I guess it is a matter of the brackets. Point conceded. stupid ass equation. Now I kind of want a nap too.
