[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.

[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)?