Page 1 of 3
Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:42 am
by jeSteR
Here's one for you then.
48÷2(9+3)=?
It's been out there a while and the only reason that there's ambiguity is because it is a poorly written equation... still, the debate is going... do distributive properties override the PEMDAS order?
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:52 am
by joel
i learned the BODMAS acronym for order. i chose 288, i interpreted as 48 / 2 * 12 and considered the lack of a * just as short form, but that it should indeed be there. I can understand it interpreted either way.
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:24 am
by se7entse7en
Well... I'd say 2. The equation is poorly written, yet it was written that way for a reason and I'd be tempted to try and read their mind. ie. it would seem to me the intention is for the 2 to be part of the parenthesis.
However, if this was entered into a computer program designed to solve math problems (ie MathCad, Maple, etc), I have a feeling it would say 288.
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:29 am
by jeSteR
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:34 am
by joel
nice to know there is no consistency between calculator makes...
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:59 am
by supersuk
its two.
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:29 am
by Duncan
yes, poorly written but i think
48÷2(9+3)=2
and
48/2(9+3)=288 (48/2 being a fraction)
whoa, i googled the equation and it seems to be a huge debate
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:32 am
by Duncan
lol, but using sql, i tried to run "select 48/2*(9+3)" and i get 288... heh...
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:40 am
by se7entse7en
haha... Well... I have a Ti-85, so I guess it's settled. The answer is 2.
Oh, and in my opinion, the '*' makes a difference.
- A person with a watch knows the time. A person with two watches is never sure.
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:05 pm
by joel
looks like it's tied here with 2 votes either way..
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:09 pm
by supersuk
lol i just linked this question to a few co workers of mine and single handedly destroyed productivity for whole team for about 30 mins.
lol we even gathered around a white board putting down formulas and etc for like 20 minutes. Kinda looked like a scene out of big bang theory.
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:14 pm
by nature boy
i voted for 288.
but if there were an option "it doesn't really matter now get back to work", i probably would have voted for 288 still.
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:16 pm
by nature boy
try this one:
So y = r cubed over 3. And if you determine the rate of change in this curve correctly, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
rdrr get it?
har dee har har
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:16 pm
by se7entse7en
Re: Wow... didn't know that I had fellow Math Geeks here
Posted:
Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:33 pm
by joel