Online Now 2174

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

On this Board 1651
Record: 12118 (3/18/2012)

Online now 2161
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

48÷2(9+3) = ????

  • bulldogg said...

    Oh, I forgot the "invisible parenthesis". LOL. You crack me up.

    "show me evidence to the contrary". How about you show me ANY evidence of your claim about "unwritten parenthesis". Anything. Your claim is like me stating that there is a guy in the Sudan that can fly like Superman - show me evidence to the contrary.

    The problem ends up that because the equation is poorly written, it is possible to solve it and get 2. Though technically that is still wrong, because of the ambiguity inherent in the equation a teacher would have to accept 2 as at least plausible. Watch the video.

    LoneWolfSparty

  • LoneWolfSparty said...

    The problem ends up that because the equation is poorly written, it is possible to solve it and get 2. Though technically that is still wrong, because of the ambiguity inherent in the equation a teacher would have to accept 2 as at least plausible. Watch the video.

    Not in a place that I can watch the video now... However, I agree with everything else you said. I understand how people would think that it is 2. I did at first. Like you said, it is technically wrong though.

    bulldogg

  • LoneWolfSparty said...

    The problem ends up that because the equation is poorly written, it is possible to solve it and get 2. Though technically that is still wrong, because of the ambiguity inherent in the equation a teacher would have to accept 2 as at least plausible. Watch the video.

    Not technically, just wrong

    bpmcgant

  • bulldogg said...

    Oh, I forgot the "invisible parenthesis". LOL. You crack me up.

    "show me evidence to the contrary". How about you show me ANY evidence of your claim about "unwritten parenthesis". Anything. Your claim is like me stating that there is a guy in the Sudan that can fly like Superman - show me evidence to the contrary.

    This reminds me of the simpsons episode with Homer's bear patrol. I can't find the video, but it's in the episode, "much Apu about nothing"

    Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
    charm.
    Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
    Homer: Thank you, dear.
    Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
    Homer: Oh, how does it work?
    Lisa: It doesn't work.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
    [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
    Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
    [Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

    Cardinal Fang

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    48÷x(9+3)=288

    Solve for x.

    So nobody tried this?

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • Edit: meant to quote:
    bulldogg said..."Oh, I forgot the "invisible parenthesis". LOL. You crack me up.

    "show me evidence to the contrary". How about you show me ANY evidence of your claim about "unwritten parenthesis". Anything. Your claim is like me stating that there is a guy in the Sudan that can fly like Superman - show me evidence to the contrary."

    I'll post my evidence for implied parenthesis/grouping again. The convention is that all the terms in the numerator or denominator of a fraction are grouped, meaing, you act as if there is a parenthesis around them. I see the problem as written in the thread title as a fraction with only 48 in the numerator because not having a * groups (9+3) with 2 in the denominator.
    The implied grouping is a fact, so you might as well just accept it. The crux of my argument, which I don't have good evidence for, is that not having a * groups 2 and (9+3). I would ask you for a rebuttal, but I don't care anymore after this post so just save it.
    Bonus: My favorite math gif.

    This post was edited by tBell Tolls on 6/7/2012 at 9:23 AM

    Order of Operations for Algebraic Expressions, Maths First, Institute of Fundamental Sciences, Massey University

    http://mathsfirst.massey.ac.nz/Algebra/OrderOfOp/orderAlg.htm

    mathsfirst.massey.ac.nz
    Playattachment
    signature image signature image signature image

    Hide yo quarterbackz, hide yo kidz, the MSU defense is here

    tBell Tolls

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    So nobody tried this?

    Are there any invisible parenthesis? :)

    bulldogg

  • tBell Tolls said...

    Edit: meant to quote:
    bulldogg said..."Oh, I forgot the "invisible parenthesis". LOL. You crack me up.

    "show me evidence to the contrary". How about you show me ANY evidence of your claim about "unwritten parenthesis". Anything. Your claim is like me stating that there is a guy in the Sudan that can fly like Superman - show me evidence to the contrary."

    I'll post my evidence for implied parenthesis/grouping again. The convention is that all the terms in the numerator or denominator of a fraction are grouped, meaing, you act as if there is a parenthesis around them. I see the problem as written in the thread title as a fraction with only 48 in the numerator because not having a * groups (9+3) with 2 in the denominator.
    The implied grouping is a fact, so you might as well just accept it. The crux of my argument, which I don't have good evidence for, is that not having a * groups 2 and (9+3). I would ask you for a rebuttal, but I don't care anymore after this post so just save it.
    Bonus: My favorite math gif.

    Ummm ... No. First there is no fraction: 48÷2(9+3). IF you insist treating the division like a fraction, your fraction is 48/2. Simple numerator, simple denominator. Multiply your fraction by 12 which is the result of 9+3.

    It is that simple.

    This post was edited by bulldogg on 6/7/2012 at 9:30 AM

    bulldogg

  • tBell Tolls said...

    I'll post my evidence for implied parenthesis/grouping again.

    The implied grouping is a fact, so you might as well just accept it.

    The crux of my argument, which I don't have good evidence for, is that not having a * groups 2 and (9+3).

    My favorite: "I'll post my evidence again", "it is a fact", "I don't have evidence for"

    LOL

    bulldogg

  • bulldogg said...

    My favorite: "I'll post my evidence again", "it is a fact", "I don't have evidence for"

    LOL

    And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee and thy math skills.

    This post was edited by RP McMurphy on 6/7/2012 at 10:04 AM

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee and thy math skills.

    Best post of the thread.

    It's a linear equation. There IS no numerator, no denominator in the equation as a whole. That also means there is no implied or invisible grouping. In MATH, if it's invisible, it's as real as The Emperor's New Clothes.

    My Blood Runs Green.....

    jartan77

  • bulldogg said...

    My favorite: "I'll post my evidence again", "it is a fact", "I don't have evidence for"

    LOL

    I have evidence that a numerator and denomimator have implied parenthesis around them. That is fact. I dont have evidence that 2(9+3) is grouped whereas 2*(9+3) is not. That's my feeling which you and many others don't agree with, and I should have expected an immature reaction after stating that opinion.
    I'm starting to feel like I'm trying to explain this to a child. Congrats on figuring out Daddy's 247 password little buddy.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Hide yo quarterbackz, hide yo kidz, the MSU defense is here

    tBell Tolls

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee and thy math skills.

    Ok that's pretty funny +1

    signature image signature image signature image

    Hide yo quarterbackz, hide yo kidz, the MSU defense is here

    tBell Tolls

  • jartan77 said...

    Best post of the thread.

    It's a linear equation. There IS no numerator, no denominator in the equation as a whole. That also means there is no implied or invisible grouping. In MATH, if it's invisible, it's as real as The Emperor's New Clothes.

    Umm...linear equations are functions which have 2 variables, usually x and y, and describe what is graphically a straight line.
    This is an expression, not an equation, and ALL math terms have numerators and denominators, just usually the denominator is one.
    Also, math is full of invisible/imaginary terms. What is the square root of -1?

    Thank you, nice try, and come again.

    This post was edited by tBell Tolls on 6/7/2012 at 11:30 AM

    signature image signature image signature image

    Hide yo quarterbackz, hide yo kidz, the MSU defense is here

    tBell Tolls

  • jartan77 said...

    Best post of the thread.

    It's a linear equation. There IS no numerator, no denominator in the equation as a whole. That also means there is no implied or invisible grouping. In MATH, if it's invisible, it's as real as The Emperor's New Clothes.

    This.

    The problem is not written as a fraction. We wouldn't be having this multipage discussion if it was.

    Gomer ●

  • Buffalo Spartan

  • tBell Tolls said...

    Ok that's pretty funny +1

    Just messin'.

    It's a poorly written equation, that's the only real conclusion, IMO.

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • The answer is 288.....it has, and always will be the answer to every math question.

    signature image

    "Come and take them"

    ICEatALAMO

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    Just messin'.

    It's a poorly written equation, that's the only real conclusion, IMO.

    Yeah that's my takeaway from this too. Use clear unambiguous language in your life, or tRCMB will smoke you.

    2.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Hide yo quarterbackz, hide yo kidz, the MSU defense is here

    tBell Tolls

  • tBell Tolls said...

    I have evidence that a numerator and denomimator have implied parenthesis around them. That is fact. I dont have evidence that 2(9+3) is grouped whereas 2*(9+3) is not. That's my feeling which you and many others don't agree with, and I should have expected an immature reaction after stating that opinion.
    I'm starting to feel like I'm trying to explain this to a child. Congrats on figuring out Daddy's 247 password little buddy.

    So, really, you have no evidence ... Because without the evidence that there is your magical invisible parenthesis, you don't know what is the numerator and what is the denominator.

    As a matter of fact, there is more evidence that supports the fact that 48 is the numerator an only 2 is the denominator.

    bulldogg

  • bulldogg said...

    As a matter of fact, there is more evidence that supports the fact that 48 is the numerator an only 2 is the denominator.

    Ok then. Recap the evidence that (9+3) belongs in the numerator of the expression and provide a source.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by tBell Tolls on 6/7/2012 at 2:04 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    Hide yo quarterbackz, hide yo kidz, the MSU defense is here

    tBell Tolls

  • tBell Tolls said...

    Ok then. Recap the evidence that (9+3) belongs in the numerator of the expression and provide a source.

    As you have alluded to, division can also be represented as a faction (dividend/divisor. Ex. one divided by 3 can be represented as 1/3). So to figure out the fraction that you so desperately want to do, you have to decide what is the dividend and what is the divisor. We agree that what is in the parenthesis is done first: 9+3=12. Now, all you have left is multiplication and division. Next, according to the order of operands, since multiplication and division are treated equally, you now work left to right. So, the first number (48) is the divisor and the next (2, because there is no such thing in this case as invisible parenthesis) is the dividend. You the perform that operation 48/2 which equals 24 obviously. Then you have a multiplication problem remaining 24x12.

    bulldogg

  • tBell Tolls said...

    Ok then. Recap the evidence that (9+3) belongs in the numerator of the expression and provide a source.

    Generally when solving a problem, you would go with the solution that requires the least amount of assumptions, solving as written requires none, solving with 'invisible parenthesis' requires a very large assumption, one that has no basis in mathematics. So if you want to choose to take the road of unbased assumptions, go for it dude, all it does it make you wrong.

    signature image

    J_LaP

  • J_LaP said...

    Generally when solving a problem, you would go with the solution that requires the least amount of assumptions, solving as written requires none, solving with 'invisible parenthesis' requires a very large assumption, one that has no basis in mathematics. So if you want to choose to take the road of unbased assumptions, go for it dude, all it does it make you wrong.

    Especially since a number next to ( assumes an invisible multiplication sign before invisible parenthesis.

    It would be more accurate to rewrite the equation as:

    48÷2*(9+3)

    than:

    48÷(2(9+3) )

    LoneWolfSparty

  • LoneWolfSparty said...

    Especially since a number next to ( assumes an invisible multiplication sign before invisible parenthesis.

    It would be more accurate to rewrite the equation as:

    48÷2*(9+3)

    than:

    48÷(2(9+3) )

    Exactly, actually it is not just "more accurate", it just is accurate vs not accurate. That is why I don't classify inserting a multiplication sign as a assumption, it is not, it is a rule of mathematics that there is a multiplication sign there.

    This post was edited by J_LaP on 6/7/2012 at 2:57 PM

    signature image

    J_LaP

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports