Discuss Attention mathematicians: Help at the Non Wrestling Talk within the Wrestling Talk Forums; Originally Posted by WhippetGrappler
This could be 2 different answers depending on how you see ...

Re: Attention mathematicians: Help
Originally Posted by
WhippetGrappler This could be 2 different answers depending on how you see it.
48
 (9+3) = 288
2
However if you see if as:
48
 = 2
2 (9+3)
hard to tell which way it is expressing it.
You are on the right track. Maybe in Ohio we did things different. I never heard of Pedmas while attending Cleveland Schools. Or if I had heard of it, I immediately forgot it, maybe considering it as something superfluous.
Your:
48
 (9+3) = 288
2
May also be expressed as
48 (9+3)
 = 288
2
I know I did that type of simplification countless times.
================================
Taking the problem at hand, lets switch 48/2(9+3) to 48(9+3)/2.
According to the presented PEDMAS procedure, 48(9+3)/2 becomes 48(12)/2. Next step is division (there are no exponents) so our problem becomes 48(6). The last step (for this problem) is the multiplication, so the answer is 288.
Question: how can 48/2(9+3) and 48(9+3)/2 both be equal to 288?
Answer: because the (9+3) is consider part of the dividend in both division problems.
Real question:
If it is my intent that the (9+3) be part of the DIVISOR how do I express that so that a quotient of 2 becomes the correct answer? We already see that whppetgrappler has shown it with his second expression.
I know that I would have
48/2(9+3)=2
and 48/2*(9+3)=288
I know that simplification was one of my key tasks in math. Is Pedmas something that occurs AFTER simplification of divisors and dividends?
DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.

Re: Attention mathematicians: Help
Originally Posted by
Spider 2. For it to be 288, there would have to be a space between the 2 and the (9+3) to indicate that the entire fraction and not just the 2 is being multiplied by (9+3).
Excellent Spider. I know I'm comfortable being in the minority on this one. I used a multiplication sign instead of a space to show that (9+3) becomes part of the dividend, since if I had used it, when (9+3) was to be part of the divisor, it would have been redundant.
DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.

Re: Attention mathematicians: Help
Without a second set of parenthesis, the answer is 288. for this to equal 2, it would need to be expressed as 48/(2(9+3)). This puts the 2 into the dividend. Otherwise, it is calculated as written, using order of operations.
Order of operations was conceived to simplify cases like this in particular. The key here is Spider's point about the space between the 2 and the (9+3). A "space" is not a recognized mathematical operation, nor should it be as my definition of 'space' and Spider's definition of 'space' may be different. Is there a space there or not? I definitely see that there is a discernible gap between the '2' and the (9+3), regardless of how small it is. As complex as math can get, mathematicians do not want to have to argue about things like this, and as a result order of operations rules, always.

Re: Attention mathematicians: Help
Originally Posted by
oldfart Without a second set of parenthesis, the answer is 288. for this to equal 2, it would need to be expressed as 48/(2(9+3)). This puts the 2 into the dividend. Otherwise, it is calculated as written, using order of operations.
Order of operations was conceived to simplify cases like this in particular. The key here is Spider's point about the space between the 2 and the (9+3). A "space" is not a recognized mathematical operation, nor should it be as my definition of 'space' and Spider's definition of 'space' may be different. Is there a space there or not? I definitely see that there is a discernible gap between the '2' and the (9+3), regardless of how small it is. As complex as math can get, mathematicians do not want to have to argue about things like this, and as a result order of operations rules, always.
This.
To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.

Re: Attention mathematicians: Help
If we want no arguments at all, we adopt whippet's expressions, don't we?
Then we don't need to determine if 48/2(9+3) and 48/2X(9+3) are precisely the same.
DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.

Re: Attention mathematicians: Help
So, does this debate mean that the answer could be different based on who is grading the paper? If so, I now understand why math always confused me so much.

Re: Attention mathematicians: Help
I taught ENGLISH but I guess 288 .
48/2 = 24 x (9 + 3)=
24 x 12=288
You know, I think I would rather be a man than a god . We don't need anyone to believe in us. We just keep going anyhow. It's what we do.

Re: Attention mathematicians: Help
Originally Posted by
quinn14 So, does this debate mean that the answer could be different based on who is grading the paper? If so, I now understand why math always confused me so much.
No. There is only one correct answer to this problem and it is 288. Using the order of operations every time will always yield the correct answer. I think the purpose of the example is to see who gets tripped up in their usage or interpretation of the orders of operation.

Re: Attention mathematicians: Help
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads
 You may not post replies
 You may not post attachments
 You may not edit your posts

Forum Rules