ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Don't worry, you won't need any real maths doing a degree in Economics.
Can you do this simple maths problem?
- Thread starter Rathaus
- Start date
Quackers
The Frog
Wait hang on a minute, product rule, calculus...some stats...it is sick ;p
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Well you'll be rubbish at calculus given your views on integration 
Product rule and stats are not hard.
Product rule and stats are not hard.
I've just read the thread ore thoroughly, I find it interesting that people are happy to use ÷ and / interchangeably.
Had the original question been 48/2(9+3) then I'd say the answer was 2, as such notation is typically used as to fit fractions onto one line. The use of an obelus has no such associated convention however; so the question really is just an exercise in correctly applying OoO, giving 288.
Had the original question been 48/2(9+3) then I'd say the answer was 2, as such notation is typically used as to fit fractions onto one line. The use of an obelus has no such associated convention however; so the question really is just an exercise in correctly applying OoO, giving 288.
They're making it just too easy for us. What I don't get is why no attempt is even being made to find a source on anything though. Is it being ignored or just recognized no such sources exist? I mean, I think it's blatantly obvious you'll never find any professional or university level text supporting the wrong 288 convention. That's all right, I'd even extend the challenge to finding something written out the full way, like h/(2*pi) instead of the usual conventions like the below. You're not going to find an equation written as wx/yz to mean wxz/y but maybe you could try to find some text that at least writes out explicit multiplication signs or whatever.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/codata.pdf
But seriously, if it's such a claim this is so common in Britain (or wherever you are) could you at least try to find a single text using the same notation as the OP, even the kids text that at least indicates people are being taught that way. And other statements like about the difference between the kiddie division sign and the slash symbol are both irrelevant and uncredited, not the issue and you haven't provided a source.
carmen510
Deity
Prove that a set of elements contains the elements that it contains, using logic. Note: It cannot simply be {1,3} = {1,3}.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
A is a subset of A, and vice versa. QED.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
Brackets go first, so it becomes
48/2 * (12)
After that, multiplication goes left to right, as I recall, so:
24 * 12 = 288
I used to hate math simply because the order of operations could kill you if you didn't know it perfectly.
48/2 * (12)
After that, multiplication goes left to right, as I recall, so:
24 * 12 = 288
I used to hate math simply because the order of operations could kill you if you didn't know it perfectly.
You can hand in your American passport at the border.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
I don't have a passport. 
Everyone else was calling them brackets so I guess I just slipped. Brackets are "[" and "]" after all.
Everyone else was calling them brackets so I guess I just slipped. Brackets are "[" and "]" after all.
I already explained the thing with the variables in my previous post. But since you incist that the correct answer is 2, could you please provide step by step solution (without missing any step)? E: Can you please give your answer in linear mode too? Also if you want proof for 288, pretty much any good calculator with the correct ooo will give you 288.
EDIT: Turns out I might have been wrong about the variables (meaning the answer is definitely 288):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operationsWikipedia said:
Can we all finally agree that the answer is 288?
48/24 = 2. And again, I'll take the words of international mathematics and physics organizations over a transient wikipedia page that trolls have explicitly stated they're vandalizing on purpose due to this same Internet debate.
And I'll extend to you the same thing said multiple times earlier. Continue to ignore it if you want, but it's not me looking foolish. Find a single source, in print, that endorses the notation used here and supports the convention that 288 is the answer. A book, journal, or so on, preferably a photo or scan. It can even be a children's book or even not in English if that's all you can find, but at least try if you're going to bother. In fact, to make it even easier, you don't even have to try to find a source that actually explicitly suggests the convention, it's extremely unlikely you would find said source in anything outside of a children's book and as far as anyone knows you might not even then. Just find an example of the same notation used though, if you please.
And I'll extend to you the same thing said multiple times earlier. Continue to ignore it if you want, but it's not me looking foolish. Find a single source, in print, that endorses the notation used here and supports the convention that 288 is the answer. A book, journal, or so on, preferably a photo or scan. It can even be a children's book or even not in English if that's all you can find, but at least try if you're going to bother. In fact, to make it even easier, you don't even have to try to find a source that actually explicitly suggests the convention, it's extremely unlikely you would find said source in anything outside of a children's book and as far as anyone knows you might not even then. Just find an example of the same notation used though, if you please.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
A book wouldn't write something like that due to bad (non) use of brackets.
Anyway you don't seem to believe me (degree in maths) or Truronian (degree in maths from Cambridge I think, also works as a maths teacher), so *sigh*.
Anyway you don't seem to believe me (degree in maths) or Truronian (degree in maths from Cambridge I think, also works as a maths teacher), so *sigh*.
Yes, I know people with phds in math who say otherwise. And I cited journals and organizations representing hundreds if not thousands of scientists and mathematicians. At the very best, you could maybe come up with evidence that in Britain children would be taught differently, so the statement "an eight year old in Britain should answer it this way" could actually be determined as true or false. But you're not even trying to find evidence for that, and otherwise you're wrong
Oxford
I live with two PhD students, and they find it laughable that anyone would try to argue that there is any such precedence for the use of obeluses. Heck, they find the mere use of obeluses laughable, which it is. Obeluses are used by children and in the education of children, and this question is a child's question.
This bears repeating; ÷ and / are not the synonymous symbols you think they are. The latter is used mainly as a way of cramming fractions onto a single line to save printing costs. The former is not.
It's a good thing no one is arguing what you think you're arguing. And I can say just as easily that you are wrong about what you think is going on. If you're not going to bother to even attempt to find evidence of things you want to claim this goes in circles.
Pray tell then, what are you arguing. I'm arguing that...
48÷2(9+3) = 288
That was after all the question posed in the thread. What are you arguing?
Then I can say with some confidence that you're wrong about what you I think I think is going on.
I can quote you some educational texts when I'm in the library later if you're really interested. They won't be particularly insightful reads because after all, it is just convention. Alternatively just plug it into a calculator.
Are you actually arguing this or was this a typo? Because that's what I said in the first place and you were attacking me on whatever grounds you thought you were attacking me on about the division sign, even though the difference between "÷" and "/" has no bearing on anything I was saying and I pointed that out to you once before.
Typo. Woops. Dodgy 8 key.
Quick question. Can would find on university level text that uses a '÷' sign?
I wouldn't believe one could find a university level text using the "÷" sign either, and neither did I ever claim that, to be clear. What I am claiming is that it makes no difference to this particular problem though, and have not ever seen a printed citation anywhere suggesting otherwise - there's no way it would make a difference to this problem. If you have a solid reference that describes how precedence orders should change regarding "÷" versus "/" it would be great to hear about. It's maybe possible some programming language or random thing on the web has problems with said symbols but that could go either way and doesn't really count, I'm sure we could agree.
edit - so regarding implicit multiplication, you could read any of my prior questions regarding finding a source to be acceptable if you found one with a "/" symbol, of course that's what I would expect. Find wx/yz = wxy/z in a text, you wouldn't have to find the same thing with the "÷" symbol in a university level text. But still, those pesky sources...
edit - so regarding implicit multiplication, you could read any of my prior questions regarding finding a source to be acceptable if you found one with a "/" symbol, of course that's what I would expect. Find wx/yz = wxy/z in a text, you wouldn't have to find the same thing with the "÷" symbol in a university level text. But still, those pesky sources...
Similar threads
