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]

On the other hand, I edtri vinrgoem reevy ncnnotosa rofm het spot dna edesivdroc thta I tmus emover all ttnicpunaou sespac dna surnebm oto Then I cnodtie ouy dielucdn het y mofr the wdro oyu rmof the peahrs iArhtg os ouy ndto ilbveee trSsei arMy I lbeviee thta the y in oyu si a snctnnaoo ni siht wdor I nodt nkwo if eth y in ryMa si a ansonotcn ro nto tBu ferat uetrrhf ewrevi I dotn see tish as bgine a bomperl in yruo revo all eshest.

[Dead Corpse]

In order for that to hold remotely true, you should be able to turn it around...

(48/(9+3))*2. 8 huh?

The only way it makes sense forwards and backwards, a true test of math logic, it needs to be 48*1/2*1/(9+3). Or 2.

[spunkets]

"In order for that to hold remotely true, you should be able to turn it around..."

Yes, the above fators I showed commute. Division does not commute, so the proper multiplicative inverses must be used as factors. Then, of course the factors commute.

"(48/(9+3))*2. 8 huh?

No.
48*0.5*12 = 12*0.5*48 = 0.5*48*12 = 12*48*0.5

[Dead Corpse]

No. 48*.5*0.0833333333= 2. You CANNOT commute that factor right off the end of the divisor.

[spunkets]

Ridiculous! You violated your own rule again, specifically: "An operator only operates on one number, or value. "I agree."

[re_nortex]

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

Now do you see?

Hmmm...it still eludes me even with that explanation.

Could you please express that in binary form to make it easier for a maroon like me to grasp?

TIA.

[Dead Corpse]

Agreed. The ONE value is 2(9+3) or 24. You need to solve Parenthesis first... Then you simplify your denominator. Then you can complete your equation.

You could even do this to reduce your terms...

24/1(12)=2. Still works.

As you describe it, and others also note, you'd need another set of Parenthesis to make it isolate the (48/2) from the (6+9). Then your logic agrees.

[SoothingDave]

You need to solve Parenthesis first.

Yes. What is inside parentheses. 9 + 3 = 12. Then move on.

Then you simplify your denominator.

The denominator is already simplified. It is "2."

[SoothingDave]

Written with a pencil on a blank piece of paper, the equation would have been more clear with or without the extra parens.

Yes.

But that's not what we have. What we have is two types of people.

The first deals with the typed-in, single-line expression as if it is a crude attempt to represent what they know the actual problem would be if it were written down on paper.

They see the "/" sign and assume it is making everything to its left the numerator and everything to its right the denominator. They regard it as a fraction sign, dividing the expression into two parts.

The other type of people see the typed-in, single-line expression as an input to a programming language or calculator which follows standard accepted syntax rules and the standard accepted order of operations.

So, it really boils down to whether people think the given expression is written by someone who knows how to program or not.

As the t-shirt says, there are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who do not.

[Dead Corpse]

The denominator is already simplified. It is "2."

No. It's 2*12. Unless you want to add in a set of parentheses to isolate the term.

48
_____
2*12
Both the 2 and the 12 are being divided into 48.

[SoothingDave]

See my post 649.

[re_nortex]

14 more posts to go until we see if this thread lights itself afire and then self-destructs. Sulfur instead of ozone maybe?

[ThomasThomas]

I concur.

[spunkets]

"The ONE value is 2(9+3) or 24"

No, that's two values, separated by a multiplication sign. The first value is "/2", or "1/2" and the second value is "(12)".

[grateful]

No. It's 2*12. Unless you want to add in a set of parentheses to isolate the term.

The original equation is: 48÷2(9+3)

So, since you say 2(9+3)= 2*12, what is 48÷2*12? 288.

[DoctorBulldog]

“...so to imagine parenthesis that cause such an extension is an error, not an example of ambiguity.”

I was being polite when I used the term “ambiguous.” Would you have preferred if I called the equation “shite!”-—like I originally thought when I first saw it?

:)

Cheers

[re_nortex]

Of things pertaining to the obelus, solidus and even the close parenthesis and vinculum, see the discussion in The (ahem) Straight Dope.

[aruanan]

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".

The number 2 is not the dividend; the 48 is the dividend (that which is being divided). The 2 is part of the divisor (the number of parts into which the dividend is to be divided), that is, the rest of the expression to the right of the obelus (÷). Why should I have confidence that you're accurate about the operation when you aren't about such words as "dividend," "divisor," "effected," the use of the word "parenthesis" (a parenthesis cannot contain anything), and see a "multiplication sign" where none exists except by implication through a type of positioning which, in itself, indicates that 2, not 48/2, is a cofactor of (9+3)?

[spunkets]

"The number 2 is not the dividend; "

Picky, picky... I said just after that, "the divisor of "48" is exactly "2". I slipped, so bite me.

"The 2 is part of the divisor (the number of parts into which the dividend is to be divided), that is, the rest of the expression to the right of the obelus (÷).

No, "2" is the only divisor. The division sign does not extend beyond that number and there are no parentheses immediately following the "/" that contain the "2" and anything else.

"a parenthesis cannot contain anything"

Parentheses. Bite me.

"see a "multiplication sign" where none exists except by implication through a type of positioning which, in itself, indicates that 2, not 48/2, is a cofactor of (9+3)?"

Pure rubbish!

[Dead Corpse]

Re-write it as 48*1/2*1/12 and do the math again. 2(12) is the number 48 is being divided by. If the equation was written 48/2x, would we still be arguing about this?

Scratch that, this is the Internet.... We have nothing else to do.