He's probably getting a little peeved about the fact that no matter what we 288ers post, the 2ers refuse to admit that they are wrong. This may be due to some weird pride, we are never wrong type thing. They may be effing with us. It could go either way.
To sum up our viewpoint, not only has the problem been solved and proved to be correct but this whole ambiguous thing is silly, as well. A while back (and no, I don't expect new people to this thread to read the entire thing), I posted exactly why the equation was written like it is. Having taught SAT math for a decade and being married to a math teacher (a wacky bunch!), its easy for us to see that you have to make equations harder and harder as kids grow up, to make sure that they remember how to do things like the order of operations of correctly. If every math equation was written with a bunch of () to clear up the order of operations or even included a * every time you needed to multiply, how would that test kid's knowledge of the basic math steps. In other words, you can say the problem is hard, but you can't say its ambiguous. It has only one answer the way it is written; its not an opinion thing. I gave the analogy of why teachers use harder and harder words in vocabulary classes when they can simply make the passages kids are reading so much clearer by using simple words. To test them and have them learn new words, of course. The same teaching principal applies in math. Start simple. 1 step math problems. Slowly add to that. Take away symbols and make sure kids remember stuff like implied multiplication, etc. etc.
To sum up, those of us on the 288 side have posted (and proven with links) why our answer is correct, why 2 is wrong, why some calculators still get the wrong the answer and why its ok to write the equation the way it is written. The other side just lists their incorrect math process over and over again (something we show them is wrong, with links to back it up), post some lame joke about taxes (you'll have to read the posts to understand that part) and then take cheap shots about our education (nothing funnier to me then a poster ragging on other people's education when they can't admit to a simple math error). Like I said, those who can't simply say ooops, I guess I learned something today are either very, very stubborn or just effing around.
at least you are being nice.
however you also are (more politely) making the same mistake that since many posters provide a 'demonstration' that agree with your position, than you conclude that your position is correct and all the 'demonstrations' that agree with the opposite views are incorrect and their proponent just 'refuse to admit that they are wrong'.
to be clear, i think that both answer are correct (or incorrect) because the problem IS ambiguous. and it is ambiguous exactly because there are valid arguments, and conventions, that support both cases.
My first inclination was to say the answer was 288, but after thinking about, reading about it looking at the 'demonstrations' (so to speak) i think there isn't one and actually, if really hard pressed for one answer, i would have to conclude that the answer more in line with the accepted conventions is 2, because of the "multiplication by juxtaposition" argument.
It's a valid one, which is certainly true with expression like y/2x or 1/2π
for example the angular momentum L=n(h/2π)=nħ, where h/2π means h/(2π), not hπ/2!
you also mention links and such, but that is far from convincing too,
for example the poster below provides several links:
Yep. As long as we're throwing credentials around let me get out my two electrical engineering degrees.
It's 288.
If my degrees don't convince you, maybe this will:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.07/h/brit1.html
http://www.onlinemathlearning.com/bedmas.html
http://www.mathsisfun.com/operation-order-pemdas.html
http://www.mathsisfun.com/operation-order-bodmas.html
http://math.about.com/library/weekly/aa040502a.htm
http://bctf.ca/diversity/ResourceInventory/LessonsTopics/Davies/BEDMAS.pdf
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops.htm
... and plenty more where those came from.
Notice that "multiplication
and division" always appear
together as a step, as in one does NOT take precedence over another, but they are expressed
left to right. They do NOT say to do the multiplication part (2x12) before the division (48/2)!
however, if you actually look at the links, they either only have the simple bedmas cases (which nobody contests) or, when they do have examples that resemble the problem mention here (with implied multiplication following a division sign) they actually conclude very clearly, that the implied multiplication is performed before the division, hnece the correct answer would be 2 not 288.
http://bctf.ca/diversity/ResourceInventory/LessonsTopics/Davies/BEDMAS.pdf
purplemath, example 5:
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm
bctf, page 4 (2 in the page numbering in the pdf) example 3
so basically this guy is linking 'proof' that directly contradicts his thesis.
so, now that i have 'demonstrated' that 288 is not correct, are you going to come here and admit that you are wrong? or at least that it is ambiguous?
