if its NOT 288, then its 2

 

Oh man I was going to say 36, but if you say 288..... My Manitoba math must not be as good as it used to be.

 

right- it depends on what kind of math you're doing. The answer is 288 if you're doing algebra-

the equation isn't being presented properly- It's a bad notation- it should be presented this way to get the answer of 2...


48÷(2(9+3)) = 2

not this way (which is an improper use of paranthesis to get the answer of 2)

48÷2(9+3) = 288

explained in detail here... by math guys.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=488334

 

For those of you who got 2 as an answer, you are correct. In the string, as presented, the 9 and 3 must be added first as they are in parentheses. Because the 2 is against the parentheses it must be multiplied by whatever is in the parentheses next. Then the outcome of the second operation is divided into 48. =2

A good way to look at is to substitute a capital X for the 2. Very common in algebra. You'd have 48 divided by X(9+3) or 48/12X. Since we know X is 2 the answer of the equation is 2.

Note: Beergut will probably complain about a lengthy discussion yesterday about this same math problem. He did take an algebra course recently. I think he may have got a couple wrong on his final though.

 

the problem is written wrong to get an answer of 2- it needs to be like this....
48÷(2(9+3)) = 2

not 48÷2(9+3) which = 288

It's been discussed all over the net. The correct answer is not 2 for the way the problem is written.

 

Its written like this...... 48÷2(9+3) = ? and the correct answer is 2 for the way the problem is written.

 

Is this some type of income tax equation?

I say I'm getting back 2, and the irs says I owe 288?

 

sorry, have to disagree.

Who knows what kind of algorithm that calc in the video is using? it really doesn't prove anything.

The TI84 does it differently...

 

Is it two? I remember you do the stuff in the brackets first.

 

I came up with 2 also.