Posted on 04/12/2011 1:32:09 PM PDT by grundle
Texas Instruments TI-85 says:
48÷2(9+3) = 2
But Texas Instruments TI-86 says:
48÷2(9+3) = 288
I agree/ I corrected my position at 368. the correct answer is 288, but the expression is poorly written
Sorry - hadn’t gotten there yet. We agree and we agree - on the answer and the ambiguous composition.
It’s not ambiguous, but it could be made more clear. If you follow the rules, you get the right answer. If you don’t know the rules, you can be led to the wrong answer due to a lack of helping parentheses.
I'm not sure that want is the right word here - perhaps need is more appropriate for some of us anyway. It would be awefully nice to be able to easily write equations the old fashioned way. Not that I would do so, since I really don't have that need any more, but it would simplify the process for the less programming-oriented among us.
Side issue, I do find it interesting how we "see" the equation differently from one another. Perhaps previous experience plays a significant role here.
“Ambiguous” in my line of work includes forms that can be easily misread. I agree on the 288 answer, BTW.
Reverse Polish Notion
Seriously
RU/18QTPi?
Yes, “need” is a better word choice.
There is definitely a perception thing here. But, sadly, there is also an unwillingness by too many to face the conventions used in expressing expressions in a single line, and the rules for evaluating operations.
ping
48÷2(9+3)
and
48
___
2(9+3)
Are the exact same same thing. There is nothing magical about the "÷" symbol that changes the answer from the same equation expressed vertically. The vertical expression is just easier to read, hence the erroneous 288's here.
Well, I did eventually come to the correct conclusion.
The reason I said the expression was poorly written was because it is too easy to misinterpret the expression as a fraction rather than interpret the "/" as an operator.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Algebra/Order_of_Operations
You say the expressions are the same, yet you can not cite anything to say why. I cite, for the umpteenth time, the rules of how expressions are evaluated.
Is there some conspiracy to make incorrect rules easy to find and yet the correct rules nowhere on the internet?
Note, this page cited doesn’t just apply to how computers read things, it is the rules of math for everyone.
Done! :)
He actually LIKES math. ;)
Hmmm, I wonder where the shortcut nomenclature of 2(x) is the same as 2 times x came from and how long ago? It has the similar look of a function: f(x) = 2x. You've got other functions using the same format cos(x), log(x), etc. with defined meanings for cos, log, etc. This has been an interesting thread to read.
I imagine that once algebra started using “x” as a variable, the use of “x” for multiplication had to go. Having one “default” operator makes sense.
I drug out the heavy guns to get an answer and called the Chinese kid next door to come take a look. God please forgive me for stereotyping.
The answer is 288. The reason is the Obelus (division sign). It means the expression is read from left to right following the order of operations.
Now here is where it gets fun. If the expression was 48/2(9+3) there is no right answer, because whoever wrote that expression is (and I’m quoting) a “dumbass”. The slash can be read as either the obelus (what you guys were saying) or a vinculum (the line between fractions).
I think we can all agree that the expression is poorly written.
LOLOLOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.