48÷2(9+3) = ????
- Thread starter cocoa
- Start date
i answered the 10x/5x inline question showing that its not normally written like that in algebra. Nobody has answer the question as to why dividing by two cannot be re written , inline, as multiplying by one half.
Rewriting 48/2(9+3) as 48*0.5(9+3) implies parenthesis around 48/2. Only problem is, there's absolutely zero reason to do so.
On the other hand, the juxtaposition argument gives a reason to imply parenthesis around 2(9+3).
An affiliate generates 48 conversions and the Network shaves 50%. So, the conversions after shaving is ---> 48÷2
The network set the street payout $9 and that particular affiliate was given an additional $3 payout bump ---> ($9+$3)
What is the total amount the network has to pay the affiliate = 48÷2(9+3) =288
The network set the street payout $9 and that particular affiliate was given an additional $3 payout bump ---> ($9+$3)
What is the total amount the network has to pay the affiliate = 48÷2(9+3) =288
> What is the total amount the network has to pay the affiliate = 48÷2(9+3) =288
Firstly, I think my real-world example is more realistic. ;P
Secondly, the pimp had a good reason for writing 2(9+3) - it was written that way because he wanted to double the amount of prostitutes in a formulaic way.
In your example, there is no good reason for writing implied multiplication instead of 48÷2*(9+3). Even the way you wrote the problem out in words, you separated the division from the multiplication by using two sentences to represent the two stages of the process.
Thirdly, if pimps and ho's can't kill this thread, nothing can.
Fourthly, Graeme, I find it inspiring that you signed up to wickedfire just to try to settle this thread.
Awesome work. You should stick around and try to make some internet monies online.
Firstly, I think my real-world example is more realistic. ;P
Secondly, the pimp had a good reason for writing 2(9+3) - it was written that way because he wanted to double the amount of prostitutes in a formulaic way.
In your example, there is no good reason for writing implied multiplication instead of 48÷2*(9+3). Even the way you wrote the problem out in words, you separated the division from the multiplication by using two sentences to represent the two stages of the process.
Thirdly, if pimps and ho's can't kill this thread, nothing can.
Fourthly, Graeme, I find it inspiring that you signed up to wickedfire just to try to settle this thread.
Awesome work. You should stick around and try to make some internet monies online.
I feel sorry for the kids you teach...
"As a mathematician I make the assumption that everything after the fraction bar is underneath it"
Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups!
As an engineering student I have to admit I've always processed this kind of operations with the "/" symbol, and that's why I answered 2.
Thanks to the math professor who came here to explain.
BTW now I don't know a fuck about math, I'm dropping out
Thanks to the math professor who came here to explain.
BTW now I don't know a fuck about math, I'm dropping out
no it doesnt. it doesnt imply anything. you are substituting a /2 for a *0.5 , which you can always do. Just as you can always substituate -2 for + negative two. There are no implied parenthesis.
give me an example, other this with this bs juxtaposition crap, where you cant do this.
can you please at least look up multiplication by juxtaposition and the order of operations before you just assume it's BS?
Let me google that for you
Results 2 and 3 explain it very clearly, 3 even has an example similar to this problem
"multiplication indicated by juxtaposition is carried out before division."
Let me google that for you
Results 2 and 3 explain it very clearly, 3 even has an example similar to this problem
"multiplication indicated by juxtaposition is carried out before division."
you do understand the purpose of let me google that for you right? I'm just asking because thats the dumbest use of it I've ever seen. I didn't come in here asking you about it some easy to solve problem and I've probably had more math than you have unless you took differential equations.
now to your point i'd say when the results to your query are (for my datacenter)
#1 the new york mets forum
#2 the doctor math's link already posted in this thread
#3-#8 people talking about this thread on various other forums
its a fairly ambiguous idea. either way, its not a rule (which is why the letter J does not appear in any of the PEDMAS / BODMAS permutations), its at best a convention used in some instances where there is confusion. AND using it leads to some quite odd implications like being unable to substitue /2 for *.5 in the example problem.
This fucking topic is still going on, WTF!
Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally ...
(PEMDAS)
"Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication and Division, and Addition and Subtraction"
Rocket Science?
Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally ...
(PEMDAS)
"Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication and Division, and Addition and Subtraction"
Rocket Science?
just so we are all clear now
1/3*6
everyone agrees that is 2 right. no argument there? everyone reads that as one third times six right?
now wrapping the single SOLITARY second term in parentheses somehow changes that value. 1/3(6) is now 1/18. All we did was add parentheses to a single term. Further now if you have a space with 1/3 (6) the value changes. Apparently you can't do because that now because spacing somehow matters. Just like you can't substitute 4*6 for 4(6) or vise versa.
TLDR; juxtaposition rule means, 1 spacing now matters and 2 you cant substitute 4(6) for 4 * 6 because some people who are very used to apply the distributive rule refuse to admit they are wrong. I for one welcome our new PEJDMAS overlords.
1/3*6
everyone agrees that is 2 right. no argument there? everyone reads that as one third times six right?
now wrapping the single SOLITARY second term in parentheses somehow changes that value. 1/3(6) is now 1/18. All we did was add parentheses to a single term. Further now if you have a space with 1/3 (6) the value changes. Apparently you can't do because that now because spacing somehow matters. Just like you can't substitute 4*6 for 4(6) or vise versa.
TLDR; juxtaposition rule means, 1 spacing now matters and 2 you cant substitute 4(6) for 4 * 6 because some people who are very used to apply the distributive rule refuse to admit they are wrong. I for one welcome our new PEJDMAS overlords.
I posted this earlier also. Your argument is probably still the same: that it's just a site using it as a rule but its not really a rule cause it's not in the mnemonic... even though the link is about PEMDAS
The Order of Operations: More Examples last example
I'm over arguing anyways it is a very debatable subject... hence the debate teehee. Lets agree to disagree, not get trolled quite as hard as the rest of the internet, and keep this thread under 10 pages or lock lol
The Order of Operations: More Examples last example
I'm over arguing anyways it is a very debatable subject... hence the debate teehee. Lets agree to disagree, not get trolled quite as hard as the rest of the internet, and keep this thread under 10 pages or lock lol
Just checking to verify - I'm NOT getting into this debate. Do you have a math degree? And if so, to what level?
It's just a lot of school maths teachers don't, they have degrees in often irrelevant subjects.
