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 ?

I like Robot Chicken...FTW!!!



:stoned

ADG

good find :thumbsup

As far as I can see, that is a quote from the 1999 conversation that someone else referenced in a recent 2011 thread.

I have a few things to do, but I'll reference the science journals I have access to.

Finding a few things.

The most compelling involves the fact that 48÷2(9+3) = 48÷(2*9+2*3) due to distribution of the implied multiplication variable.

Interesting.

Distribution is Multiplication. If you distribute the 2 in to the parenthesis before you solve what's inside the parenthesis, you've violated the standard order of operations. You have to do what's inside the Parenthesis first.

Remember, the distributive property applies to multiplying by a polynomial. 9+3 is not a polynomial.

Figured that you would chime in, due to your lack of comprehension of my example.

I said that 48÷2(9+3) = 48÷(2*9+2*3), implying that the VALUES of such are equal.

What I did NOT state is that such is the way that the original equation is calculated.

Let's see who else is quick to jump on your bandwagon in an attempt to correct what I did NOT state. :1orglaugh

By the way, the correct answer is still 2

Interestingly enough, at least one professor seems to disagree with you. That's good enough for me.

I just want to know who the 14 people are who like "robot chicken" whatever that is. :)

But good discussion. It is good to see folks argue their convictions.

48÷2(9+3) != 48÷(2*9+2*3)

You can't just move a bracket as you see fit. You have to follow the order of operations. There are rules for situations like this and if you stick to the rules and not follow some weird rule that you guys seem to know but no one seems to be able to prove then you come up with 288.

It has been mentioned many times that this is a TROLL thread, and yet people still argue over this? Are GFY-ers really this stupid??? There is no point arguing over a something that does not have a correct answer, because it's written incorrectly. People really don't have anything better to do than arguing in a Troll thread?!?

:thumbsup

My response to Warchild (guess that you were too busy posting to read my repsonse to him). See below.

Since I'ver already provided multiple links pointing to the Standard Order of Operations without any of them making any mention of implicit multiplication outranking explicit multiplication, would somebody from the other camp please post some links documenting the standard that requires otherwise? If it's an agreed upon standard it must be pretty easy to find somewhere? I wasn't able to find anything conclusive myself. Perhaps you can educate me. I'm open to having my mind changed.

In the meantime consider this.

48÷2(9+3) = 48 x ½(9+3)
48 x ½(9+3) = 288

Because we aren't retarded like you. The equation is NOT 48/2*12. it's not written out that way.

It's MORE than obvious (9+3)=12. Shouldn't be ANY argument in that. So 2(9+3)= 2(12) which = 2*12 which = 24. So take the first number which is 48 and divide that by the answer of 2*12 which is 24 and you get 2. This isn't hard.

Love how the people who are obviously wrong come out with the insults as if it helps their position.

Don't know why you are doing 2*12 before 48/2 since by doing that you are violating the normal order of operations.

You're right, this isn't hard. So I don't know why people keep coming up with 2 when the answer is 288.

If you know of a rule that makes 2(9+3) take precedence in the order of operations over something else then speak up and show some proof.

But you know of no such rule because it doesn't exist. That said, the normal order of operations should be followed and when it is from left to right we get 48/2 = 24 and then 24(9+3) which is 288.

Go ahead Gator B, this isn't hard right? All you people saying you know of this magical rule can surely show me somewhere where this rule is published as a rule in mathematics? It isn't. Did you guys want me to show you some published rules about BEDMAS (or PEMDAS)??

2(3) is no different a number than 2 * 3. And 2(9+3) is no different a number than 2 * 12.

Go ahead - prove me wrong. I would love to be proven wrong because I am so damn sick of being right about everything. I am always right and I hate it so I invite you to show me the rule that says one kind of multiplication is different than another when it comes to order of operations.

Until then please keep the insults to yourself lest you make a fool of yourself insulting the wrong person like me, Mr. Right.

I am always right. Please prove me wrong, any published rule will do.

I also go by Duke Opposite of Left

i am one of them, now find other 13

troll thread is troll worthy

So not one link to the ruling that decreed implicit multiplication to have priority over explicit multiplication? If it really is a standard, it should be readily available?