the math apocalypse: 48÷2(9+3) = ?

[Rooged]

how the forget is this still going on

[Ad Bot]

[Blockzillahead]

My Physics Professor said 288

asked my calculus prof
he said 2.

i asked why and he said because how the way "2(9+3)" is written. its implicit. its implying that 2 is already part of that 9+3. he said if the multiplication sign would be added in like "2*(9+3)" then the answer would be 288. thats his take on it.

[Blockzillahead]

and in a way that makes sense. its like factoring out x out of 2x+ x. you would get x(2 + 1)

[Aide33]

asked my calculus prof
he said 2.

i asked why and he said because how the way "2(9+3)" is written. its implicit. its implying that 2 is already part of that 9+3. he said if the multiplication sign would be added in like "2*(9+3)" then the answer would be 288. thats his take on it.

that's why it's ambiguous

people that use PEDMAS don't understand that it's only a standard to get one answer no matter the way it is written

PEDMAS only gets the answer teachers want to have on the test, the correct way to write the equation would be with a lot of brackets or parenthesis

The harsh reality here is that these kinds of 'trick questions' are totally loving useless because they rely on the complete incompetency of the question-maker. Any test worth its salt will use fraction bars for division, which implies where the parenthesis go.

According to the order of operations the answer is 288. However, you shouldn't feel any better or worse at math whether you got it 'right' or 'wrong'. The question is stupid.

/thread over

[blueblur121]

order of operations m8.

Holy stuff why is this still going.

[Blockzillahead]

order of operations m8.

Holy stuff why is this still going.

WHY NOT HUH BLUEBALLLS? MATH IS FUN TO ARGUE ABOUT

[$trinick]

The argument is null. Seventh and I pretty much explained it; the question is inherently ambiguous and can be interpreted either way. You may think that you can't interpret to solve as 2, but as it's been pointed out repeatedly there's no rule for how to do that, and there never will be. The fault is in the question and thus the question asker, not with the person who solved it.

Unless you got an answer other than 2 or 288.

[Georges]

Come on guys, 26 more replies!

[Aide33]

The argument is null. Seventh and I pretty much explained it; the question is inherently ambiguous and can be interpreted either way. You may think that you can't interpret to solve as 2, but as it's been pointed out repeatedly there's no rule for how to do that, and there never will be. The fault is in the question and thus the question asker, not with the person who solved it.

Unless you got an answer other than 2 or 288.

yep

agreed.
Now what do we argue about? Politics?

[Gytyyhgfffff]

MY GOD THIS HAS 18 PAGES IN 3 DAYS

BLOGLAND PLEASE SAVE ME

[$trinick]

BLOGLAND

I don't see how this is relevant to the topic at hand. There is no blogging going on in this thread.

[ResonKinetic]

all of this could've been avoided if the first reply was "288 and 2; the question is ambiguous"

[Freek]

all of this could've been avoided if the first reply was "288 and 2; the question is ambiguous"

[McJobless]

asked my calculus prof
he said 2.

If he marked me wrong for getting 2 on a test, I'd call for an appeal process. I wouldn't let that stuff slide.

Still finding it really loving difficult how people can abandon standards just because they don't take a good long look at the question and make incorrect assumptions about it.

[Derontchi]

how the forget is this still going on

How about this:

Q=7
7=3+4
30+40=70
70-27=47 (27 letters in alphabet)
47-30=17
Q is the 17th letter in the alphabet
17-10=7
Q=7