When you press the ÷ button on the calculator it shows up as /. At least on the TI 84+

Wolfram disagrees with you here. 1/ab*2/cd interprets as (1/ab)*(2/cd), instead of the 1/(ab*(2/cd)) your post would imply.

If that were true, then there'd be loads of textbooks using the extraneous parentheses. No one has been able to cite one.

I thought this was covered?
As explained in the order of operations wiki

Grunch - 288.

Glad to see 288 pulling away with a 40 vote lead.

So sad, though, to see that the poll is even remotely close to 50-50.

WTF, people?!

Lol at 288 people being so shocked at people answering 2...its pretty clear if you have ever taken high school algebra how you might get 2. I would bet on a group of 4th graders getting 288 more often then a group of college students who have taken calc+.

I have higher hopes on 2p2. DUCY?

AWESOME, AWESOME, AWESOME THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!

I should use 48÷2(9+3)=? as my facebook status

Sorry, I don't have any math textbooks laying around to support or contradict your anecdotal evidence. I guess that means I couldn't have ever passed algebra.

Most proper math books though would express fractions as fractions where the numerator and denominator are clearly unambiguous, not as an expression like this. If they did so in the context of a paragraph of text, that context would help clarify any ambiguity. This entire thread should make it obvious that any textbook that would present 1/2x completely out of any context and expect clarity isn't a very good one. Your claim that everyone who's passed algebra should assume 1/(2x) is ridiculous.

Right, but see that's just using one set of rules.

Other textbooks and manuals use this (quoted way earlier in the thread):



Rule 7.

So basically what is happening here is similar to different casinos having different rulebooks for poker. In Los Angeles (at Commerce, at least), forward motion is binding. In Vegas (at the Bellagio, at least), forward motion is not binding. Chips have to be released from hand for a bet to stand.

The 288 people are like Vegas pros declaring that there's some objective truth to forward motion not being binding. The 2 people are like Commerce pros declaring that there's some objective truth to forward motion being binding.

The rest of us (the ambiguity-defenders) are saying that different rules are in place. Which is why the equation itself is written too poorly for there to be a definite answer. If there were another set of brackets, then the ambiguity would be solved. Then you don't have to compare different sets of rules. All rules state that (48/2)x = 24x. And all rules state that 48/(2x)=24/x.

bout tree fiddy

The equation was fine imo because of the ÷ sign. AFAIK there is zero ambiguity that 2(x+y) and 2*(x+y) are completely equivalent. So what is ambiguous about this? I agree that it could possibly be written so it's a little easier to read. But there is nothing that's mathematically ambiguous about it.

This equation is going to crash the internet

For those answering 2:

48÷2(12) = ???
48÷2*12 =???

Also, I had to copy & paste the ÷ sign because I don't know how to make one.

Yep, that's pretty much exactly what it means. Not that that's anything to be ashamed of. I'm sure you do just fine in your janitorial work without having to know any of that fancy math with the letters.

None of this matters because the question is flawed.

Everyone knows 24 is the highest number

This. People who are really shocked and/or not understanding how anyone can get to 2 are $hit at math.

More than 500 posts arguing something that can literally be googled. *smh*

That is the essence of OOT.

i cant tell if im being leveled. math scares me.

It's just a stupid question. You cant just mix notations any old how and expect people to follow it.

You start by using childish ÷ sign that never turns up in an equation/formula then halfway through you start using implied multiplication and brackets.

Either write is as 48÷2x(9+3) giving the 288 or 48/2(9+3) as all maths texts would do giving the answer as 2.