the math apocalypse: 48÷2(9+3) = ?

Poll

48÷2(9+3) = ?

2
20 (25.3%)
288
38 (48.1%)
meth not even once
21 (26.6%)

Total Members Voted: 79

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 21

Author Topic: the math apocalypse: 48÷2(9+3) = ?  (Read 16189 times)

McJobless

September 19, 2014, 09:50:38 PM
Quote from: Freek on September 19, 2014, 09:45:15 PM
calculators don't precisely calculate order of operations. they do it from left to right, not PEMDAS.
You either have a faulty or cheap calculator. All programming languages in the world have established the order of operations and left-to-right calculation as the standard, and that counts for whatever they use to code calculators.

Ad Bot

Advertisement

Blockzillahead

September 19, 2014, 09:58:39 PM
well that solves the case of the long internet mystery. 288
i frigging hate math but sometimes its so intriguing

Starzy

September 19, 2014, 09:59:19 PM
It's not 288

McJobless

September 19, 2014, 10:01:23 PM
Quote from: Starzy on September 19, 2014, 09:59:19 PM
It's not 288
I'm not going to get my maths answers from mini-Riddler.

Nonnel

September 19, 2014, 10:03:42 PM
it's 2

WaterOre

September 19, 2014, 10:08:36 PM
My mental maths tell me this is 2.

Ipquarx

September 19, 2014, 10:10:43 PM
Quote from: Starzy on September 19, 2014, 09:59:19 PM
It's not 288
it is 288 because you go left to right not right to left

Quote from: ZombieDude on September 19, 2014, 09:44:30 PM
ok for forgets sake
its not division then multiplication. its division & multiplication left to right
how do people not know this

Freek

September 19, 2014, 10:11:49 PM
can we just drop the discussion it's loving 2

ZombieDude

September 19, 2014, 10:12:14 PM
Quote from: Freek on September 19, 2014, 10:11:49 PM
can we just drop the discussion it's loving 2
except it isnt 2 you dumbass

Katadeus

September 19, 2014, 10:13:25 PM
I was first junior in state on math team and order of operations is hella annoying
But yeah 288, it's not that hard

McJobless

September 19, 2014, 10:13:39 PM
Quote from: Freek on September 19, 2014, 10:11:49 PM
can we just drop the discussion it's loving 2
I like how you continue to ignore all the examples we've given as to why it's not 2.

Freek

September 19, 2014, 10:14:25 PM
Quote from: McJobless on September 19, 2014, 10:13:39 PM
I like how you continue to ignore all the examples we've given as to why it's not 2.
its two because you multiply before you divide you loving twat

ZombieDude

September 19, 2014, 10:14:48 PM
Quote from: Freek on September 19, 2014, 10:14:25 PM
its two because you multiply before you divide you loving twat
no you loving dont who taught you this
you need to go back to 5th grade

hodot

September 19, 2014, 10:15:48 PM
Quote from: ZombieDude on September 19, 2014, 10:14:48 PM
no you loving dont who taught you this
you need to go back to 5th grade

control your anger, friend

Freek

September 19, 2014, 10:16:42 PM
Quote from: ZombieDude on September 19, 2014, 10:14:48 PM
no you loving dont who taught you this
you need to go back to 5th grade
that's how I've always learned it
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 21
« previous next »