Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 33
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 ...
  1. #10
    World Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Lakewood
    Posts
    2,443

    Default Re: Attention mathematicians: Help

    Quote Originally Posted by WhippetGrappler View Post
    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.

  2. #11
    World Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Lakewood
    Posts
    2,443

    Default Re: Attention mathematicians: Help

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    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.

  3. #12
    AA oldfart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Finger Lakes
    Posts
    665

    Default 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.

  4. #13
    Administrator vaisforlovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    9,931

    Default Re: Attention mathematicians: Help

    Quote Originally Posted by oldfart View Post
    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.

  5. #14
    World Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Lakewood
    Posts
    2,443

    Default 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.

  6. #15
    Olympic Champ quinn14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,754

    Default 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.

  7. #16
    Olympic Champ r.payton@att.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Danville .Indiana
    Posts
    8,718

    Default 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.

  8. #17
    AA oldfart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Finger Lakes
    Posts
    665

    Default Re: Attention mathematicians: Help

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    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.

  9. #18
    AA oldfart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Finger Lakes
    Posts
    665

    Default Re: Attention mathematicians: Help

    Attention mathematicians: Help-expandtheequation.jpg

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

user tags

www.physics.com

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
  •