Even Doctor Peterson, in your cited example, lends credibility to the implied multiplication rule and states that the rule is used in some texts. The Math Phd does not merely support your side of things.

Bottom line: You can't "drop" parentheses willy nilly, you have to complete the implied multiplication first.

The date of your quoted example is also telling - (1999). Standards in this year of 2011 state that implied multiplication is possible through parentheses which takes priority over other functions. When you have a number outside parentheses it implies that you multiply the outside by the value of the inside.

So when you simplify 48÷2(9+3) you get 48÷2(12) not 48÷2*12 because you haven't multiplied 2 by (9+3), now (12), yet. Keep your parentheses! Only drop them after completing the implied multiplication. 48÷2(12) = 48÷24 = 2

Dude and Dude-ettes, Math Wonks one and all, for the love of GOD please listen - and then STFU and find something real to do with your lives:

Just because you can manipulate numbers and how they are written this way or that so that either side can appear correct does not negate the fact that, and the factor you have all been missing in this equation, you are all a bunch of losers arguing about mathematical nonsense.

L=oser Squared.

The answer to math questions doesn't change over time.

The answer could have been from 1903 and it wouldn't have made a difference.

Read what the MATH PHD says: you go from left to right if there are no brackets.

Therefore 288 is the answer.

Yes the math phd does credit the other way of doing things, the first thing he/she says is that the way I showed above is the right way.

You also can drop parenthesis willy nilly when they don't mean anything. You can also add them. (48) ÷ (2)((9)+(3)) is the same question as above.

Adding brackets around a number doesn't change the number.

http://www.asiandivagirls.com/gfy/fuck-this-i-strip.jpg

:stoned

ADG

You answered my question with a question.

You half reduced 2(9+3), stopped, then inserted it back.

Think of 2(x) as F(x) where

F(x) = x*2

i.e. a number is a function that multiplies itself with it's argument.

then 48/F(9+3)
= 48/F(12) ... apply + operand to parenthesis
= 48/ (12*2) ... apply function F
= 48/24 ... apply * operand to parenthesis
= 2 ... apply / operand

We need fucking mathematics kings to announce solution :)

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Educational standards are improved, updated and modified continuously to eliminate ambiguities and this situation is one of them.

You quoted a standard that a math phd in 1999 said specifically that some texts at that time supported.

This is 2011 and present texts and science manuals support the implied mathematical standard. You googled an outdated standard that a phd supported over a decade ago.

And your assertion is incorrect. You cannot drop parenthesis willy nilly in an equation because they were put there for a reason. The implied multiplication standard states specifically that the reason why the numerical value on the outside of the parenthesis is put next to the valued equation in parenthesis is that the outcome of that equation is exactly what needs to be multiplied by the numerical value on the outside of the parenthesis to produce the correct result.

This is a simple explanation that has been complicated by those who choose to ignore what the implied multiplication standard clearly represents.

Actually, Mathematics is the core of everything in this technological age. Anything can be reduced to a mathematical equation in some form or another.

I would rather discuss this than mindlessly answering a thread asking whether I would "hit it" or not...

Well...sometimes. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Lol what implied multiplication standard?

You think that math has changed since 1999 so that there are questions with different answers now? You obviously know NOTHING about math. I quoted a math phd, you quoted...nobody?

You can drop brackets when the brackets do nothing as in this case.

When someone can find someone with more legitimacy than a math phd (a doctor of math) that can tell me that the answer is 2 then I might listen otherwise I will stick to my amazing knowledge of math as verified by the phd I quoted.

Cam-girls:

If the question is 48/2(9+3) or 48/2*(9+3) the answer is the same. Adding brackets doesn't change a thing since the brackets don't surround any operation. Furthermore, when you say implied multiplication you do know that there is only one multiplication symbol and it is implied by the 2 being right beside the (9+3). So the question can be rewritten as 48/2*(9+3) because you aren't changing the question, just adding a symbol to clear things up. The brackets don't change the number and they don't change the answer. You're simply WRONG.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh Again at eroticsexxx thinking that the answer to math questions changes throughout the years.

So you mean to tell me that all the proofs and mathematical solutions prior to 1999 are all wrong now? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Man some of you know NOTHING about math. Just people pretending to know and making things up.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You mean

48÷2(9+3) = 48÷2*(9+3) = 288

Take some math lessons then come back, what you're saying is going against what a doctor of math is saying as quoted above. Sucks when you're calling yourself a dumbass but I whole-heartedly agree!

I quoted a math phd that shows I'm 100% right. You guys are all talking out of your asses and have no proof from any professor or anyone with any credibility. The only one that has shown that proof so far is me. Therefore the only one that is right is the ones that came up with 288. Sad to say for some of you that had a higher idea of what you could or couldn't do - MATH is something you CAN'T do.

Before you even type anything back just go ask someone that knows instead of pretending you know and you'll come up with 288.

Thanks for trying pornopete, better luck next time kiddo! Hopefully the next time will have a question your tiny dinosaur brain can handle! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

the way i learnt math the answer is 2..

checking in to make sure im still winning

yep
answer is still 2

moulabani,did you go to school here in canada?

Right, so the phd I quoted was just 'baloney' and you are right? Looks like someone is in denial. But what more can you expect from someone that doesn't know how to spell 'were' when trying to call people names. Sorry kiddo!!

Phonics: You're wrong the answer is 288 and yes I did.

arguing semantics. this is not a math problem, it's a nomenclature problem.

in the real world (classroom or applied) the issue would be easily clarified by the author.

yes sure...how is the view from on top the fence?
lol




the answer is 2 people...dont fall for moulabanouiosmajoo or whatever,dont listen to that guy, his name sounds like witch craft



BURN him

lol

relax shithead.

good morning drama queen


when you going to get the boobs installed and cut your dick off?

since you act like a bitch, you might as well commit

dont go half way

i am not a witch i swear

only way to find out is to throw you into the lake...if you float you are a witch for sure

if you sink to the bottom,...sorry

lol

again, relax shithead.
you're the one that can't see the fact that the original problem is poorly written, not me.

i simply pointed that out, that's not being on the fence, so don't get butt hurt because i bitch slapped you with that fact.

:Oh crap

sad how you get so defensive & butthurt over a comment in a thread about maths.

and i agreed with you

when i said yes sure....its not my fault you cant read or understand basic math
:321GFY

out of 230 responses in here, you are the only one to start throwing insults

says a lot about you, i think we should pay attention to the wonderful mind of dyna mo

lol

Um, you know just because he calls himself "Dr. Math" does not necessarily mean that's his name, right? I mean what a coincidence that his last name be 'Math' and he gets a doctorate in mathematics! If you go to http://mathforum.org/dr.math/abt.drmath.html you actually learn that the good "Dr" started out as a bunch of college students and is now open to all sorts of volunteers, so basically you have no idea who you're quoting or what their qualifications are.

umm, fyi brainiac, i simply stated it was a semantics issue, to which YOU replied with a sarcastic comment about me being on the fence re: this crucial issue you think you are clearing up.

my post was genuine, you chose to get sarcastic, i can play along, np. with your brainiac skills, you should of figured that out.

and no, the answer is not 2.

any engineer who sees an equation like that when he's building a bridge is going to request clarification.

Doctor Peterson isn't Dr Math. That's the name of the website.

The guy's name is David Peterson.

My first answer was 288.

But after thinking back, I realized that was wrong. My teachers taught me an acronym to remember the order of operations:

Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally: P E M D A S

Paranthesis, Exponents, Multiply, Divide, Add, Subtract.

So,

48 / 2(9+3) = ???

Step by step.


Paranthesis: 48 / 2(12)

Exponents: None, so problem is still 48 / 2(12)

Multiply: 48 / 24

Divide: 2

There's your answer.

i learnt it as bodmas; brackets, orders, division, multiplication, addition, subtraction. division and multiplication have equal precedance to each other, multiplication doesn't come first.

Before you attempt to diminish my contribution to this thread, I would suggest that you do more in depth research on your own. There is no "making things up" on my part as I am a member of certain scientific organizations and associations.

I am aware of the correct nature of my findings and unlike you I don't need to post a google result from 1999 and stand by it simply because the person happens to be a Phd.

Quite clearly you are not familiar with scientific and education journals that continuously promote the updating of standards across the board. Neither are you scientific minded. If you were, you would be aware of the continuous flux in regards to the procedures followed in theoretical and procedural mathematics.

By the way, I am not saying that the answers to math questions change throughout the years. What I am stating as fact is that scientists and mathematicians do continuously update their procedures and the educational finding pushed to universities and schools to ensure that there are no anomalies that would prove challenging in the future.

No making up stuff here. Facts only.

when you consider newton was using calculus 350 years ago, there's no way an "anomoly" as basic as this, was only sorted out in the last 10 years.

people please please! dont take this thread serious ... IT IS A TROLL thread started by a master troll !


lol

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Math isn't science.

2+2 will always equal 4.

Science changes - gravity to Newton was different than gravity to Einstein. But the math they both used was the same math.

The answer to one question will remain the same throughout time. That's why math is what it is.

If you are so certain about this updated procedure found in so many scientific journals then you won't be hard pressed to come up with a place where it was published. Until then you are making things up, I am right and you are wrong.

BODMAS = 288

PEMDAS = 2

Phoenix =

http://whatwouldmomsay.com/blog/wp-c...-retarded2.jpg

Fact is you'll never use calc or complex equations anyhow. Ratio problems are more important to day to day life.

Would you go to a plumber to argue about your appendix?

If you havent taken university level algebra then...

The answer is 2. The answer 50 years ago in most all universities was 2.

You dont need a "*" or extra parenthesis at the univ level.
The fellow is correct. They chgd that from 8th or 9th grade algebra text books to univ text books. (removed the extra symbols and made equations shorter)

who the fuck said its 288? did u fail math??

i did tons of problems like this in highschool & college

48÷2(9+3)

=

48 ÷ 2 (12 )

=

48 ÷ 24

= 2

Thank you, so did I. A ton of fucking problems like this in my 20's while you all got to fuck off in your 20s. :)

Edit: Actually I did my share of fucking off. :)

in the case of

48÷2(12)

you still have to deal with parenthesis first.

Actually, you make an excellent point. LOL This is more interesting than many of the threads here lately. Maybe some pics of naked girls working out this math problem would be helpful. :)

i thought gfy people were thinking only at boobs....

I agree with you that 1999 is a bit too old. Fortunately, somebody asked that very same PHD this EXACT question in this day and age. Here is how he answered it:

So there you have it folks. A PHD and professor of mathematics says, in 2011 says it's a poorly written equation that, and I quote him here directly, "The left to right approach yielding 288 is the only interpretation that fits the usual set of rules; but it is so easy to
misread that I'd avoid it".

PHD Math > everyone here. Case closed.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Just wondering what's your sample set to have convinced you that this is some kind of standard?

Here's another answer on a similar issue from Dr. Peterson

So as late as 2008, the experience of a professor of mathematics was that while some texts treat implied multiplication as having a higher priority, "most texts" treat all multiplications alike.

This is further supported by my personal experience. We were taught about about implied multiplication, and in some cases it was specified to have priority, but we were never taught that it ws a standard.

Further evidence has been offered in the form of at least 3 Universities whose math departmens have posted their "Standard Order of Operations" online and make no mention of implicit outranking explicit.

Now perhaps you have more experience with Alegbra textbooks in the last few years? Maybe you're a publisher or a professor yourself? If so I'd like to hear what makes your experience so vast as to be able to pronounce that it's a standard when all evidence is to the contrary?

canada will miss warchild.

well, maybe not the rottweilers, but still.

Wow...all of this debate over a simple fucking equation that any pre Algebra student can do...whether he/she took pre Algebra 50 years ago or this year. In other words it is a simple equation and that is the standard...past and present.

Where are you all getting that "Doctor Peterson" is an actual PhD? The provided "Dr Math" about page says that the replies are by students. Looking through the staff pages I see no photo of anyone named Peterson. I have no idea if there is or isn't a Dr Peterson, but considering the pages you cite say that responses are by math students I wouldn't be so eager to say the author is undoubtedly a PhD despite signing his responses as "Doctor" so-and-so.

I was skeptical when I first found that source too. It's difficult to tell exactly who "Doctor Peterson" is, but Dr Math is a page hosted by Drexel University, where "Math Doctors" answer questions. Students and teachers send in their questions and various Math Professors answer them. Each response is from a "Doctor someone" ...

I guess you're right that it's not concrete proof. It is however more likely than not that a University would not allow people to misrepresent themselves on their properties as being Doctors if they were in fact not.

In addition there has been several publications by teams of people associated with that site, and each one lists the authors as being PHDs.

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,570 for author:"|-|erc" group:sci.math
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,030 for author:"|-|ercules" group:sci.math
Results 1 - 10 of about 678 for author:graham author:cooper group:sci.math

I have 4,000 posts in sci.math over 10 years, and PhD level mathematicians disagree with each other 100s of times every day.

Here is where I disproved the most popular notion of computer science that a Turing Machine is the simplest conceptual computer!

http://tinyurl.com/microcomputation

Many mathematical 'proofs' taken for granted by 99.9% of mathematicians are still wrong and yet to be disproven!

PhD = a piece of paper!

love this thread ... why dont you math geniuses go over to a real math forum and discuss it in depth over there ?