48÷2(9+3) = ?

[grundle]

Texas Instruments TI-85 says:

48÷2(9+3) = 2

But Texas Instruments TI-86 says:

48÷2(9+3) = 288

[Lazamataz]

It's easy. Just remove every consonant from that post, and you get: Aioyouoeieeieayeiieiaiiioioeoiaeaaieeaaaayaieiieoeeiioiaoioaieaoaeaiuuoaioaeeeeoeaeaaaaiaiiioioeoiaaaeaaaieeyaieiieoeeii
oiaoioaieaoaeaiuuoaioaeeeeoeaeaaiaiiioaaaioeaoaaiaeaaieeaayaieiieoeeaiaiaoaiaaaoaiaoaieaoaeaiuuoaioaeeeeoeaea". Now do you see?

[Dead Corpse]

The 2 isn’t a 2. Or even a 1/2. It is (2*12). Or... 1/2*1/12. 1/24*48/1=2.

[Dead Corpse]

Yet another way to prove this is to distribute the 2 into the 9 and 3. Hence, 48/(18+6) if you remove the factor of 2. This resolves to 48/24. Or 2.

[spunkets]

Only in your imagination.

[spunkets]

"Yet another way to prove this is to distribute the 2 into the 9 and 3."

There is no "2" to distribute. There is only a "/2", which is a "1/2" to distribute.

[Dead Corpse]

If you re-wrote the equation (48/2)(9+3), I'd have no argument. As it is, even if the value of (9+3) were replaced with x, you'd still have 2(x) as your variable instead of 24x. Since 2x is the term you'd have to write it as 48*1/2*1/x to get it to make sense.

[spunkets]

"if you remove the factor of 2"

There is no factor of "2". There is a divisor of "2" that appears in the equation, which is a factor in the equation of "1/2".

[aruanan]

There is no factor of "2" in the equation. the equation is 48*1/2*12

Po po chile. First, 48÷2(9+3) is not an equation. It's an expression. Second, as written, everything on the left of the division sign is divided by everything on the right for at least three reasons: 1. there is nothing in the notation that indicates 2 is the sole divisor of the dividend 48, only parentheses enclosing 48 and 2 could do that, 2. there is nothing in the notation that indicates (9+3) is not a cofactor of 2, only parentheses enclosing 48 and 2 could do that, and 3. the placing of the 2 next to the parentheses, in the absence of any operational sign, makes 2 the cofactor of the sum of the operation inside the parentheses.

_48_
2(9+3)

Or 48 * 1/2 * 1/12

Or 48 * 1/24

Or 48/24

Or 2

The whole basis for the mystification some people seem to feel when confronted with this expression is due to thinking that it could be "interpreted" several different ways. Given the notation that exists and absent the notation that would be required to yield an answer of 288, this is simply not possible. It's not something ambiguous like, "Woman without her man is lost."

[Dead Corpse]

So you argue that while the 2 is to the right of the divisor is 1/2, but the 9+3 term that is ALSO to the right of the divisor is NOT in fact 1/12.

Stay away from my checkbook please.

[Dead Corpse]

Exactly.

[spunkets]

"As it is, even if the value of (9+3) were replaced with x, you'd still have 2(x) as your variable instead of 24x."

No. "/2*x" and that contains one divisor and one factor. The equivalent 2 factor value is "1/2 * x". There is no "1/(2x)" factor in the equation and there never was.

[Dead Corpse]

So what do you do with the factor 12? Which is ALSO to the right of the divisor? Either both factors are 1/x or they are not. You can’t have it both ways.

[CharacterCounts]

Aioyouoeieeieayeiieiaiiioioeoiaeaaieeaaaayaieiieoeeiioiaoioaieaoaeaiuuoaioaeeeeoeaeaaaaiaiiioioeoiaaaeaaaieeyaieiieoeeii oiaoioaieaoaeaiuuoaioaeeeeoeaeaaiaiiioaaaioeaoaaiaeaaieeaayaieiieoeeaiaiaoaiaaaoaiaoaieaoaeaiuuoaioaeeeeoeaea"

Wow! You must be psychic.

That's exactly what I heard when my ninth grade algebra teacher was at the blackboard.

[spunkets]

"First, 48÷2(9+3) is not an equation. "

The subject is the correct evaluation of the equation.

"1. there is nothing in the notation that indicates 2 is the sole divisor of the dividend 48"

Yes there is. The number 2, which is a dividend, is followed by a multiplication sign. Since that dividend is absolutely NOT contained in any parenthesis, the divisor of "48" is exactly "2".

"there is nothing in the notation that indicates (9+3) is not a cofactor of 2, only parentheses enclosing 48 and 2 could do that,"

Additional parenthesis enclosing the fraction "48/2" is redundant. They are not needed, as per above.

"the placing of the 2 next to the parentheses, in the absence of any operational sign, makes 2 the cofactor of the sum of the operation inside the parentheses."

Ridiculous. Arithmatic multiplication is not effected in any way by the manner in which it is indicated.

[ThomasThomas]

I tried removing every consonant from the post and discovered that I must remove all punctuation, spaces and numbers too. Then I noticed you included the “y” from the word “you” from the phrase “Aright - so you don’t believe Sister Mary.” I believe that the “y” in “you” is a consonant in this word. I don’t know if the “y” in “Mary” is a consonant or not. But after further review I don’t see this as being a problem in your over all theses.

[Dead Corpse]

One more time...

48/(2x ) where the value of x is 9+3.

You see... This is why we can't have nice things.

[Poser]

Since multiplication and division have the same priority, you divide first and then multiply by 12. To get two, you will have to add parenthesis in front of the 2.

[spunkets]

"So you argue that while the 2 is to the right of the divisor is 1/2, but the 9+3 term that is ALSO to the right of the divisor is NOT in fact 1/12."

That's correct. An operator only operates on one number, or value. It does not operate on multiple numbers, or values, unless indicted to do so explicitly with brackets, or parenthesis. If htose brackets and parenthesis do not appear in the original equaiton, then they do not exist and should never be imagined.

[Dead Corpse]

An operator only operates on one number, or value.

I agree. That is why you need to resolve 2(9+3) before you even get close to mucking about with the divisor. As that expression stands, it isn't (48/2)*(9+3) as you imply. It's 48/(18+6).

Or 2.

[spunkets]

Re: "An operator only operates on one number, or value.

"I agree. That is why you need to resolve 2(9+3) before you even get close to mucking about with the divisor.

That can not be resolved by ignoring the operator that effects the number "2" first, since the pair is an inseperable representation of the value "1/2", which is the true factor of the value "(9+3)".