Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

48÷2(9+3) = ?

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



TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: algebra; math; mdas; pemdas; texasinstruments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 661-670 next last
To: GingisK

see my earlier post. great minds thing alike..


521 posted on 04/13/2011 8:04:38 AM PDT by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: paulycy

see #520. we are not alone...


522 posted on 04/13/2011 8:05:03 AM PDT by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner
Actually, you are the one who is arbitrarily regrouping:

48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
48/24 [oops, broke left to right rule]
2

You arbitrarily turned 48/2(9+3) into 48/(2(9+3)), which breaks associative rules. You also have unbalanced parenthesis in your equation.

The correst parse:

48/2(9+3) parsed from left to right is
24(9+3)
24(12)
288

523 posted on 04/13/2011 8:13:36 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: GingisK; Forty-Niner
I'm sorry, the commutative property was violated, not associative. Multiplication and division are not commutative. By performing the multiply on the right first, you changed the order of operation which is supposed to be left-to-right for operators of equal precedence.
524 posted on 04/13/2011 8:24:02 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS

You are incorrect. The correct order of operation is:

terms inside brackets
exponents and roots
multiplication AND division
addition AND subtraction

In the absence of parentheses, multiplication and division are performed left to right.

So it would be:

48/2(9+3)
48/2 * 12 <-— this is now left -> right!
24 * 12
288


525 posted on 04/13/2011 8:37:41 AM PDT by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sigzero

See post 401. This is from PurpleMath.com and explains what happens with the parentheses. Using their logic, the correct answer is 2.


526 posted on 04/13/2011 8:46:10 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Rose, there's a Messerschmit in the kitchen. Clean it up, will ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS; sigzero
See post 401. This is from PurpleMath.com and explains what happens with the parentheses. Using their logic, the correct answer is 2.

Sorry, that would be post 429, not 401. 429 was in response to 401.

527 posted on 04/13/2011 8:50:49 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Rose, there's a Messerschmit in the kitchen. Clean it up, will ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm

Linky-dinky-doo to the purplemath.com reasoning behind why the answer is 2. The equation in question (from post 429), and the logic behind it, is at the bottom of the page.

528 posted on 04/13/2011 8:55:36 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Rose, there's a Messerschmit in the kitchen. Clean it up, will ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS

The “juxtaposition” theory does not seem to be very well accepted, given how all of the computer programs, etc. don’t use it.

If someone is really following that theory, I can accept their answer. It’s the rest of the nonsense and ignorance used to get to “2” that is questionable.


529 posted on 04/13/2011 9:01:22 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS

Did you read his final note? His way breaks the order of operations in my opinion.


530 posted on 04/13/2011 9:08:49 AM PDT by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
If someone is really following that theory, I can accept their answer. It’s the rest of the nonsense and ignorance used to get to “2” that is questionable.

I'm pretty much in agreement that it's how you learned that makes the difference.

In school, I would have come up with 2, as that is how I learned it from my Algebra teacher - himself a math geek.

In programming, I would have come up with 288. However, if I wanted to come up with two as a programmer, I would have clarified the equation with an extra set of parentheses around the 2(9+3) - (2(9+3)).

The real issue is that the equation should have been better clarified, and if I got the wrong answer (depending on if the instructor was looking for 2 or 288), I would easily be able to state my case for the opposite, using cites from this here interweb thingy.

531 posted on 04/13/2011 9:09:43 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Rose, there's a Messerschmit in the kitchen. Clean it up, will ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

You mis-stated the original problem. There was no multiplication sign in the original problem. 2(9 + 3) is one number and that number is 24.

48 ÷ 2(9 + 3) =
48 + 24 = 2

You must use the distributive property prior to division. The 2 is distributed to the 9 and 3.

No reason for you to not accept the obvious.


532 posted on 04/13/2011 9:13:46 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
I think the major disconnect here is between those who see a “/” sign and just assume that everything after it is in the denominator of the division expression.

And those who see “/” as a mathematical operation between expressions on either side of it.

The former force implied parentheses into their evaluation.

The latter do not.

I think both sides are forcing an implied parentheses into their evaluation.

The 288 crowd are implying a parenthesis like this:

(48/2)(9+3)

The 2 crowd are implying a parenthesis like this:

48 / [2(9=3)]

The mathematical expression is written ambiguously.

533 posted on 04/13/2011 9:16:07 AM PDT by RedWhiteBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

Where is the rule stated that you must use the distributive property?

Can’t you add 9 and 3 together? That resolves what is inside the parentheses. Then you go on to division and multiplication.


534 posted on 04/13/2011 9:23:42 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS

An extra set of parentheses is not needed because of the distributive property must apply prior to division.


535 posted on 04/13/2011 9:25:53 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: RBranha
It’s ['/'] actually a forward slash.

Thank you for that and also see my posts #469 and #440 in this thread.

I guess the Windows-centric worldview leads to that confusion since the backslash character in Gatesware used for the directory component separator. Real operating systems (and URLs) use the proper slash (or virgule) as set forth from the beginning of The Epoch.

536 posted on 04/13/2011 9:28:52 AM PDT by re_nortex (DP...that's what I like about Texas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: RedWhiteBlue

No, if you follow the rules of the order of operations, as stated all over the internet and without the “juxtaposition” theory, there is no ambiguity. Try it.

Do what is in the parentheses. 48/2(12)
Resolve left to right, since mult and div have same priority

24(12)

288

I don’t need to add any implied parentheses, just follow the rules.


537 posted on 04/13/2011 9:30:11 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

Purplemath.com is just one source.

Someone also posted that if you go to algebra sites and enter the problem exactly as presented, the answer is 2.

If you change the problem to 48/2(9+3), the answer is 288. If that was indeed the problem, the answer is clearly 288, but that is not the problem.


538 posted on 04/13/2011 9:33:34 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

Where is it written you must use the distributive property? When you can simply add 3 and 9?


539 posted on 04/13/2011 9:35:42 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

The distributive property is one of the rules and you can’t pretend is doesn’t exist. If it doesn’t apply in a case like this, why have it at all?


540 posted on 04/13/2011 9:39:17 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 661-670 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson