[Dead Corpse]

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

Using this logic, it'd be 48*1/2*1/12. Or 2. You would add the original 9+3, but is still in the denominator making it's absolute value 1/12.

[spunkets]

"Using this logic, it'd be 48*1/2*1/12. Or 2. You would add the original 9+3, but is still in the denominator making it's absolute value 1/12."

No, the division operator only effects the number immediately folling it. No operator extends beyond the number it precedes.

[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."