288. Like the rest of us who actually studied in a field that requires math in college and work in such a field.
This is really only confusing/unclear for those who stopped really using math daily after grade school.
B
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Solve this simple math problem: 48/2(9+3)
- Thread starter coolwater
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
288. Like the rest of us who actually studied in a field that requires math in college and work in such a field.
This is really only confusing/unclear for those who stopped really using math daily after grade school.
B
Anything can be confusing and "ambiguous" if you throw enough uninitiated at a situation. It's just that people that lack proper knowledge or training would rather say something is "ambiguous" than admit that the problem lies with them.
Always blame somebody else for problems, never yourself.
Having passed through college or any math class doesn't prove anything, even that someone is working in a particular field doesn't necessarily make it an expert in the subject.288. Like the rest of us who actually studied in a field that requires math in college and work in such a field.
This is really only confusing/unclear for those who stopped really using math daily after grade school.
B
Math is a language we engineers, scientists, economists, etc... are fluent in.
To us this is not-ideal delivery method, but it has a definite meaning.
Looking at the thread, I think there is a clear dividing line. Native math speakers: scientists, engineers, programmers, etc... say 288. Others who are effectively non-native speakers may interpret 2 due to their lack of fluency.
B
Last edited:
Pretty much
You get 288 if you know what you are doing and do not make the necessary assumptions that you have to make in order to get 2
When your job relies on solving equations and manipulating them, you can bet it does as far as understanding the fundamentals of solving equations
I agree
If the person who wrote the equation meant 2, he would need to rewrite the expression with () encompassing the entire denominator
When dealing with equations, you can not guess what is implied. You have to use a consistent framework and follow it verbatim.
Last edited:
My grammar may be terrible, but I dare say that I can do math. I do lots of it. The divide balamw mentioned really does seem to exist, and is a little disappointing.
Yes. Again, from the posts I have seen those that never really stopped using math all agree: 288 is the correct answer in the presented form. Ideally such an equation would be presented either with very clear parenthesis/multiplication signs or typeset in LaTeX or similar.
I don't see how you can say that. None the less how anyone can confidently answer this question.
You arrive at 288 by multiplying 48/2 * (9+3), but that is assuming multiplication is the implied operator.
The way the equation is written, this question simply does not make sense. Parenthesis or something similar are needed to make this equation solvable.
You say you are fluent in mathematics, etc, but fluency requires proper syntax, which the equation simply does not have. If a professional gave me this problem to solve I would call them an idiot.
balamw & dukebound85:
You guys are making too many assumptions.
Following your thought process, the original post is not properly written then?
You guys are making too many assumptions.
Following your thought process, the original post is not properly written then?
Multiplication is always what you do when there is a term directly adjacent the ()
No assumptions are being made to get 288, but assumptions are being made to get 2. That is the point
There is nothing wrong with how the original post is written from a mathematical point of view as it produces a definite result.
However, if the author of the equation meant for all that to be under the denominator, it is not properly written.
If he did not mean for it to be, it is written in a proper manner but could be written in a clearer form such as (48/2)(9+3). However, that is identical to 48/2(9+3)
Last edited:
Just gave the problem to my 12 year old brother. Yup, its 288. To all you people who still believe it's 2, I hope you don't deal with math a lot in your careers. It might also be a good idea for you to hire somebody else to do your taxes
I get 61,835, but I'm beginning to think someone has mucked around with the keys on my calculator.
Cheers,
OW
Cheers,
OW
It has been mentioned before in the thread, but it bears repeating.
Addition and Subtraction can't have different precedence because they are the same operation. "Subtraction" is just shorthand for adding negative numbers.
Similarly division is just multiplication by the reciprocal. They MUST have the same precedence.
You can't take PEMDAS literally if you know what you are doing.
No we're not, we're using the language of math as we know it. x/y(a+b) has a definite meaning and it is the same as (x/y)*(a+b) not x/(y*(a+b)). You would NEED the extra parentheses to change the meaning.
The * multiplication is assumed if there is no operator provided, though most would probably add it in or rewrite the equation to make it even clearer it's very far from unclear.
B
Multiplication is always the implied operator for an equation in that form. If it is something other the multiplication is must be specified. 2*2=(2)(2).
I don't think they are. They are (correctly) saying that if you solve the problem as written without making any assumptions you come up with 288 as the one, and only, correct answer.
Also, Balamw I posted almost exactly what you just said (post above this). See post 179.
Yeah, that's why I said I was repeating. It was probably also mentioned elsewhere too. I know it came up in my earlier post that linked to Wikipedia as well. https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12362611/
I resorted to Wolfram Alpha back in post #18. https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12362161/
B
"Oh, I did not know that!!" - Johnny Carson, The Tonight Show
Finally, humour.
Check your IMOS battery. I think it's failing.
What is my assumption?
They are assuming that all the engineers know the right answer, and that math is a language that is the same all over the world.
Cry then if it makes you sad.
Just gave the problem to my 12 year old brother. Yup, its 288. To all you people who still believe it's 2, I hope you don't deal with math a lot in your careers. It might also be a good idea for you to hire somebody else to do your taxes
So he is the man. Does he do your taxes?
So he is the man. Does he do your taxes?
Nope, but considering the level of math it takes to do taxes, he could
. Should I ask him if he would do yours for you?
Your assumption is that the multiplication of 2*(12) takes precedence over the 48/2. This is incorrect for the many reasons stated in the thread.
It can't without the extra parentheses.
B
Didn't all your methods, whatever they are called, give a priority to do the parenthesis operation first?
It is not my assumption, it is the method/explanation given by others.
My initial answer is and will always be 2.
My Mac can't be wrong.
Mac OS X can't be wrong.
Not here.
A Mac in MacRumors can't fail.
It has nothing to do with being an engineer. And yes, math is a language that is the same all over the world.
It's not surprising that we lose basic math skills that most people really don't need to use on a day to day basis.Just gave the problem to my 12 year old brother. Yup, its 288. To all you people who still believe it's 2, I hope you don't deal with math a lot in your careers. It might also be a good idea for you to hire somebody else to do your taxes
- Status