
Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

View Poll Results: What is the answer?

2


26 
47.27% 
288


29 
52.73% 


04092011, 08:38 PM

#16

2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 162
Car: E46

When it's written as 2(9+3), it's already implied that the 2 belongs to (9+3). Anyone in engineering knows that the answer is 2.
The answer would be 288 if it were written as 48(9+3)÷2 =
Quote:
Originally Posted by e36_freak
I calculated this and got 288
i googled the equation and google's calculator comes up with this
(48 ÷ 2) * (9 + 3) = 288
I also tried it on WolframAlpha.com (WolframAlpha is more than a search engine. It gives you access to the world's facts and data and calculates answers across a range of topics) and got to the same result
Input:
48\2(9+3)
Result:
288
EDIT*
for those getting 2. why do you multiply before dividing? i always thought you solve the numbers in bracket first and once that is done you either multiply or divide, whichever comes first. Multiply doesn't take precedence over divide...

type this into wolfram alpha: a/b(c+d)
What do you get?



04092011, 08:47 PM

#17

the misanthropist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: a house
Posts: 6,249
Car: '05 4Runner, 87 325

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex
lol
48
(12)
2
maybe a better way of looking at it is like that.

Correct. In order for it to be 2, it would have to be written as 48/(2*(9+3)). As is, it can be written as 48*(1/2)*(9+3) and NOT 48*1/(2*(9+3))
__________________



04092011, 08:47 PM

#18

Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Location:
Posts: 16,667
Car: m3

Quote:
Originally Posted by LOSO
When it's written as 2(9+3), it's already implied that the 2 belongs to (9+3).

The only thing that is implied by 2(9+3) is that there is a multiplication sign between the 2 and the opening bracket.



04092011, 09:10 PM

#19

Over 9 F**KING THOUSAND!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oakville
Posts: 9,775
Car: E46 M3

48/2(9+3) = (48/2)(9+3) = 288
48/2(9+3) = 48/(2(9+3)) = 2
Live happy knowing that both are right, and that this question is too vague.
__________________
S52ZFTRM Coilovers 670/895Staggered 18" 5's



04092011, 09:14 PM

#20

King Sirex
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,850
Car: VW

if brackets aren't inserted into the equation, you cant automaically assume that they are there, or that they belong there.
If you use any calculator with algebraic execution of functions, your answer will be 288.



04092011, 09:44 PM

#21

Over 9 F**KING THOUSAND!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oakville
Posts: 9,775
Car: E46 M3

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex
if brackets aren't inserted into the equation, you cant automaically assume that they are there, or that they belong there.
If you use any calculator with algebraic execution of functions, your answer will be 288.

My Ti83+ says 288.
__________________
S52ZFTRM Coilovers 670/895Staggered 18" 5's



04092011, 11:27 PM

#22

3rd Gear Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 578
Car: 2006 BMW X3

This is the obvious answer:
__________________
2006 BMW X3
2003 Acura MDX



04092011, 11:43 PM

#23

King Sirex
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,850
Car: VW

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe
My Ti83+ says 288.

want to make out? My TI34 II says 288 as well.



04102011, 01:59 AM

#24

6th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brampton
Posts: 3,160
Car: 2003 330i VF charged

your calculators are incorrect, because you're inputting the equation wrong.
seriously. with fractions, if there are any manipulations, you must do to the bottom what you do to the top. if you got 288 you are wrong since you're dividing the numerator (ONLY!) by 2 = 24.
fine, but given that you must also divide the denominator by 2 as well which those who are getting 288 aren't doing.
soooo, given what i said you should correctly have (48/2) / {[2(9+3)]/2} = 24/12 = 2.
as soon as the division sign is present, its a fraction. therefore....
48
(DIVISIONSIGN)
2(9+3) <clearly you can just do the math 2(12)
48
(DIVISIONSIGN)
24
= 2
__________________
R.I.P. E30



04102011, 02:20 AM

#25

Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Location:
Posts: 16,667
Car: m3

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gato Liso
your calculators are incorrect, because you're inputting the equation wrong.
seriously. with fractions, if there are any manipulations, you must do to the bottom what you do to the top. if you got 288 you are wrong since you're dividing the numerator (ONLY!) by 2 = 24.
fine, but given that you must also divide the denominator by 2 as well which those who are getting 288 aren't doing.
soooo, given what i said you should correctly have (48/2) / {[2(9+3)]/2} = 24/12 = 2.
as soon as the division sign is present, its a fraction. therefore....
48
(DIVISIONSIGN)
2(9+3) <clearly you can just do the math 2(12)
48
(DIVISIONSIGN)
24
= 2

solve this then
42/2*10



04102011, 02:21 AM

#26

6th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brampton
Posts: 3,160
Car: 2003 330i VF charged

210
__________________
R.I.P. E30



04102011, 03:00 AM

#27

Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Location:
Posts: 16,667
Car: m3

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gato Liso
210

in the post above you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gato Liso
as soon as the division sign is present, its a fraction. therefore....

So why the double standard?



04102011, 10:12 AM

#28

King Sirex
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,850
Car: VW

maybe a better way of looking at it for your el gatso, and a way that might make more sense is in a more complicated way.
48 / 2x
where x = 12
48/2x = 24x
You would still divide by 2 first to simplify.
24(12) = 288.
after you've simplified, then you can multiple the x.
Last edited by sirex; 04102011 at 10:15 AM.



04102011, 10:13 AM

#29

6th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brampton
Posts: 3,160
Car: 2003 330i VF charged

i knew you were going to say that captain obvious. i will explain....
there is a lack of brackets in that equation. there is not double standard at all.
BEDMAS says Division first, so 42/2=21, the Multiply next, 21*10 =210
if it were 42/2(10) then i would have treated the equation like a fraction...do brackets first then divide. 42/20 = 2.1
multipication and division roll together. addition and subtraction roll together.
__________________
R.I.P. E30
Last edited by El Gato Liso; 04102011 at 10:38 AM.



04102011, 10:19 AM

#30

6th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brampton
Posts: 3,160
Car: 2003 330i VF charged

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex
maybe a better way of looking at it for your el gatso, and a way that might make more sense is in a more complicated way.
48 / 2x
where x = 12
48/2x = 24x
You would still divide by 2 first to simplify.
24(12) = 288.

nahhh brooo..
if you're going to simplifiy 48/2x, then you would have 24/x. you cant just get rid of the "/" you know.
heres the expanded form of wat you used as an example.
48.......48........1
 =  x 
2x........2........x
if X is 12...
48.......48.......1............48
 =  x  = ......... = 2.
2x........2.......12...........24
multiplying fractions? numerator x numerator. denominator x denominator.
the answer IS 2.
__________________
R.I.P. E30
Last edited by El Gato Liso; 04102011 at 10:31 AM.



Thread Tools 

Display Modes 
Rate This Thread 
Linear Mode


Posting Rules

You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On



All times are GMT 4. The time now is 02:06 PM.
