What is the answer to this?

[Mise]

If I write 2(9+3) I mean "two-into-nine-plus-three" as one whole unit; if I write x/2y, I mean for the x and the 2y to be treated separately, with the / sign representing a really long divide sign that covers everything to the right of it (but before any " " space character). I'd probably never write 48/2(9+3), but if I did, then that's what I'd mean. So I would expect you to do "48 divided by (two-into-nine-plus-three)". Similarly if I wrote h/2pi, I would expect you to give me h-bar, not (h*pi)/2. But we've been through this before

 

[Nargluj]

The answer is 7.

 

[Leoreth]

If I write 2(9+3) I mean "two-into-nine-plus-three" as one whole unit; if I write x/2y, I mean for the x and the 2y to be treated separately, with the / sign representing a really long divide sign that covers everything to the right of it (but before any " " space character). I'd probably never write 48/2(9+3), but if I did, then that's what I'd mean. So I would expect you to do "48 divided by (two-into-nine-plus-three)". Similarly if I wrote h/2pi, I would expect you to give me h-bar, not (h*pi)/2. But we've been through this before

This. To me, the implicit * operator between variables and constants binds "stronger" than anything else.

 

[Akka]

I beg your pardon?!

Operation priority is something that should be taught in grade school : multiplication and division takes priority over addition and substraction. Once you know this, there is absolutely no possible confusion in what the OP is asking.

 

[History_Buff]

I don't think it is ambiguous, just that some people just look at the problem wrong. If it was supposed to be 48/(2(3+9)), as some people seem to assume it should be read, it would had been written that way, or with the 48 on top of the rest of the expression. Because it wasn't written that way, the answer is clearly 288

It's absolutely ambiguous, since there are no formal rules to tell us how to interpret it. But like Mise, if I saw 48/2(3+9), I would definitely think you meant for the 2(3+9) to be one unit, because / in text usually means a fractional division sign, with everything following underneath. If you wanted the answer to be 288, the "correct" way to write it would have been brackets, or 48/2 (3+9) [possibly with a * between the 2 and (3 ].

 

[Thedrin]

48/2(3+9) = 2
48/2x(3+9) = 288

Implicit multiplication - when no multiplication sign is written - takes precedence over explicit multiplication - when the multiplication sign is written - and division. Explicit multiplication and division are of equal priority and run from left to right.

This is what the last one of these threads was about.

 

[Truronian]

Different maths question:

What animal is this?

 

[Borachio]

Is it a totally connected graph?

 

[warpus]

A graph representing sexual relations between Jersey Shore cast members?

 

[Omega124]

snip

snip

snip

Eh, I still think that, if 2(3+9) is to be read as one expression, the problem would be read like this:

48
----
2(3+9)

Since it isn't written like that, it is simply just 48/2.

However, I will concede that if were to be read as you three read it, the answer would be 2.

Implicit multiplication - when no multiplication sign is written - takes precedence over explicit multiplication

There is no official consensus among mathematicians whether or not this true. However, I disagree with implied multiplication having a higher priority.

Therefore, (1/2)x=1/2x and 1(2x)=/=1/2x.

 

[History_Buff]

Eh, I still think that, if 2(3+9) is to be read as one expression, the problem would be read like this:

48
----
2(3+9)

Since it isn't written like that, it is simply just 48/2.

Well yes, that's exactly how you'd write it on paper. If I had to type it out quickly, and only got to use one set of brackets for some reason, 48/2(3+9) is how I'd do it. The whole point is that people are writing deliberately ambiguous expressions, and then thinking the dispute over their equivalent value means anything.

Then there's the whole contextual thing. If I wrote 48/(3-3)+2, despite how BEDMAS would tell you to evaluate that, it should be obvious that I mean 24.

 

[Truronian]

A graph representing sexual relations between Jersey Shore cast members?

That would presumably contain lot of multiple arcs and loops.

It's a dog by the way...

K₉

 

[Omega124]

Then there's the whole contextual thing. If I wrote 48/(3-3)+2, despite how BEDMAS would tell you to evaluate that, it should be obvious that I mean 24.

48/(3-3)+2
48/0+2
Problem unsolvable

48/((3-3)+2)
48/(0+2)
48/2
24

So, no, it's not obvious written like that.

 

[History_Buff]

Yes, it is. Because I wouldn't ask you to evaluate an undefined expression.

 

[Ayatollah So]

6, 1, 0, *, +, 2, 2, /, -
Reverse Polish Notation for the win.

 

[RobAnybody]

Spaces are not a mathematical notation! You may as well treat them as if they didn't exist.

6 2 2 = 622
6 1 0 * + 2 2 = 610*+22

It's kind of an error in describing the problem, sure, but mathematcally it's the same as 610*22. The plus sign is equivalent to putting a minus sign, it's just traditionally not needed. It's the same as saying:
6 1 0 * - 2 2 = 610*-22


Also, to address the OP - Brad Pitt:"What's in the box? What's in the box?!?"

 

[Mise]

If somebody deliberately put spaces in between 6, 2 and 2, I would assume they were intended to be multiplied. I don't know why anyone would write 622 as 6 2 2; the much more likely explanation is that they are separate terms in the equation.

 

[del62]

Perhaps the first rule of Mathematics ahould be that all unnecessary confusion should be avoided.

2a + 3b = 32

this is obvious - so it is fine to use this notation

but

2a + 3 8 = 32 is not obvious

To answer Mise's point, why would anyone write 6 x 2 x 2 as 6 2 2 either.

 

[Mise]

To answer Mise's point, why would anyone write 6 x 2 x 2 as 6 2 2 either.

The character set that the person used to write the "×" symbol in the document isn't present on the device that I'm viewing it on, so my device shows a blank space instead.

And actually, very often, academics are just play weird. They do things their own way for the sake of doing it their own way, rather than for the sake of clarity. Some people take pride in obfuscation. "I don't have time to write a × ! I'll write a . instead, much more parsimonious -- even when using numbers, so that you can't tell the difference between six-point-two and six-dot-two!"

 

[Perfection]

Jesus is the answer