Diablo® III

48÷2(9+3) = ? cont.

Posts: 204


Your mistake is when you decided to put the *1/(9+3). There is no 1/ applicable to that part of the expression.


That is not a mistake. It is a visual or logical impairment that makes one assume:

(numerator)/(Denominator)(numerator)


The only logical impairment is when you assume (9+3) is in the denominator when it actually is not. We've explained this countless times to you.
Reply Quote
Posts: 126


Your mistake is when you decided to put the *1/(9+3). There is no 1/ applicable to that part of the expression.


That is not a mistake. It is a visual or logical impairment that makes one assume:

(numerator)/(Denominator)(numerator)
How else are you going to be able to put in numerators after a denominator if they are all punched in on the same line?
Reply Quote
85 Orc Warrior
12025
Posts: 1,545
06/12/2012 10:44 AMPosted by Sinew
has been debunked fifty different ways.


post a list of all 50 and then we will all concede that your delusions are actually correct
Reply Quote
Posts: 126
If they didn't let you use calculators in High School, I would think you would be a little old to be still working these kinds of problems... Trust me buy a calculator, you won't regret it...
Reply Quote
Posts: 204
06/12/2012 10:48 AMPosted by Sinew


post a list of all 50 and then we will all concede that your delusions are actually correct


I don't think someone who hasn't contributed anything to either side gets to make demands.


Sigh this guy must love to live in ignorance.
Reply Quote


Your mistake is when you decided to put the *1/(9+3). There is no 1/ applicable to that part of the expression.


That is not a mistake. It is a visual or logical impairment that makes one assume:

(numerator)/(Denominator)(numerator)


Correct, but what you just did illustrates (numerator)/(denominator)(denominator). So your principles are correct, but your application is wrong.

EDIT: Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were saying what you claim to be a "logical impairment" is correct (which it is).
Edited by Mayde#1748 on 6/12/2012 10:53 AM PDT
Reply Quote
I'm going to quote my own post from earlier that Sinew seemed to miss:

Here is a very simple and authoritative description of the topic from another discussion I think many of you could benefit from:

I am your college professor that you requested, with a doctorate in Mathematics. I will break this down as simply as possible and end this debate as approx. 10 students have already asked me this today.
The problem as it is written is 6÷2(1+2) , the ÷ cannot be substituted with a fraction bar because they have different ranks on the order of operations. It is an illegal math move to do this. The bar ranks with parentheses, ÷ is interchangeable with *. therefore the problem must be solved as 6÷2(1+2) NOT 6 (over) 2(1+2) we do the parentheses first, so 6÷2(3), the parentheses are now no longer relevant, because the number inside is in it's simplest form. Every single number has implied parentheses around it.
6÷2(3)
(6) ÷(2)(3)
6÷2*3,
or even converting the division to multiplication by a reciprocal (a legal math move)
(6)(1 (over) 2)(3)
are all correct ways to write this problem and mean exactly the same thing. Using pemdas, where md and as are interchangeable, we work from left to right, so (3)(3) or
3*3= 9

Just because something is implied rather than written does not give it any special rank in the order of operations.

The problem in it's simplest form, with nothing implied would look like this:
(1+1+1+1+1+1 (over) 1) ÷ (1+1 (over) 1) * ((1(over) 1) + (1+1 (over) 1))
From here, nothing is implied, This again, works out to 9.

If the symbol '/' was used this whole debate would be ambiguous since that symbol can mean "to divide by" or it could mean a fraction bar.

HOWEVER, because the ÷ symbol is used, it can not be changed to mean a fraction bar because that would change the order of operations and thus the whole problem, you can't change a symbol to mean something because you want to, in doing so you are changing the problem.

Once and for all, the answer is 9.

Hopefully some of my students see this so I can stop answering this question.

End of debate... hopefully.
Source(s):
Doctorate, 9 years teaching experience.
Reply Quote
Posts: 204


The only logical impairment is when you assume (9+3) is in the denominator when it actually is not. We've explained this countless times to you.


This is nonsensical. Your 'explanation' has been debunked fifty different ways.


Your "debunks" have all been false. You have yet to provide a correct debunk of my explanations. If you actually find a correct debunk to this, post it to me so that I can publish it because everything we know about math will be basically wrong.
Reply Quote
Posts: 22
the answer is not 9 the answer is 2

source: master league 6 seasons
Edited by TheConquest#1191 on 6/12/2012 11:01 AM PDT
Reply Quote
so what I really don't get is if you rewrite the problem to be 48(9+3)/2 then you would get 288... why wouldn't you write it this way? if the creator of the problem wanted the (9+3) to be on top then why not say that the half is at the end.. anyone that is on the side of 288 wanna explain this to me?
Reply Quote
Posts: 204
06/12/2012 11:11 AMPosted by Sinew
Just because something is implied rather than written does not give it any special rank in the order of operations.


The parenthesis are still there until you multiply by 2, not to mention that implied multiplication is a higher order function than division (which has been stated numerous times).

a/b*c != a/b(c)


This is false untill you provide documented evidence other wise. As I've stated there is no higher order, multiplication is done with division regardless if it is implied or not. Where do you people keep getting this? Do you just believe anything you read on the internet now?
Reply Quote
Posts: 204


This is false untill you provide documented evidence other wise. As I've stated there is no higher order, multiplication is done with division regardless if it is implied or not. Where do you people keep getting this? Do you just believe anything you read on the internet now?


http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2x%C3%B72x

2x/2x = 1

!= x^2


I'm so glad you decided to use wolframalpha.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F2%289%2B3%29

It gives 288.
Reply Quote
Posts: 126
06/12/2012 11:13 AMPosted by chefm123
so what I really don't get is if you rewrite the problem to be 48(9+3)/2 then you would get 288... why wouldn't you write it this way? if the creator of the problem wanted the (9+3) to be on top then why not say that the half is at the end.. anyone that is on the side of 288 wanna explain this to me?
No one teaches how to write equations in a certain order in order to denote what mulitplication and divisions are done first. It is easier just to say that it is done in a certain order due to its notation than fiddle around with it until you get the numbers in the correct order, to be able to do all left to right. So to correct would be [(48(9+3)]/2 this makes it clear that the numerator has to be done first before the division even though you could just calculate it left to right and get the correct answer and no one would think that part of the equation was (48)[(9+3)/2].
Reply Quote
Posts: 204
06/12/2012 11:29 AMPosted by Sinew
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2F2%289%2B3%29


Apparently your memory is failing. That has been posted already. A machine cannot process novel stimuli.

48/2(9+3) is 288 only if you only know OoO

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%2Fab

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2848%2Fa%29b


Either the machince is right or wrong. It cannot be both.

If you're going to use that as your proof you also have to accept the answers it gives.
You only need OoO to solve 48/2(9+3). you don't need to know or use anything else.

The fact that wolframalpha shows x/ab = x/(ab) is because of the use of variables. When you enter variables into the equation ab becomes a factor by itself. But that's not the case that's going on right now.

48/2(9+3) is the same thing as saying x(a+b) where x= 48/2, a=9, and b=3

It is NOT x/ab where x=48, a =2, and b=(9+3)
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]