Math: right answer

[vito corleone]

hahaha! simpleng straight line problem solving ginawang complikado, ayoko na!

pre, ayaw nyo lang tanggapin ang explanation kaya it seems complicated. . .try answering the red portion below. . .kahit sa sarili mo na lang

Now, let's write it as thus:

48 = a
2 = b
12 = c

Now, we can rewrite it as thus:

a/bc

So... can anyone who's actually studied math claim that:

a/bc =

ac
b

instead of:

a
bc

The first gives you 288. The second gives you 2.

To actually get ac/b, you need to rewrite the expression as thus: a/b*c.

Since no explicit "*" or "x" sign is used, you regard the whole as part of the denominator, using the division sign as a grouping sign (fractional)... which is exactly what the division sign is.

same point with niky, walang "*" or "x" sign sa pagitan ng 2 at (9+3) kaya di sila dapat paghiwalayin

natatawa ako sa ibang nagsasabi dito na ang sagot ay 288, some of their arguments/explanations actually support and direct the answer to 2


ayan, napabili pa tuloy ng bagong calculator si renzo

[mda_]

pre, ayaw nyo lang tanggapin ang explanation kaya it seems complicated. . .try answering the red portion below. . .kahit sa sarili mo na lang



same point with niky, walang "*" or "x" sign sa pagitan ng 2 at (9+3) kaya di sila dapat paghiwalayin

natatawa ako sa ibang nagsasabi dito na ang sagot ay 288, some of their arguments/explanations actually support and direct the answer to 2


ayan, napabili pa tuloy ng bagong calculator si renzo

salamat godfather!

[jansky]

pre, ayaw nyo lang tanggapin ang explanation kaya it seems complicated. . .try answering the red portion below. . .kahit sa sarili mo na lang





same point with niky, walang "*" or "x" sign sa pagitan ng 2 at (9+3) kaya di sila dapat paghiwalayin

natatawa ako sa ibang nagsasabi dito na ang sagot ay 288, some of their arguments/explanations actually support and direct the answer to 2


ayan, napabili pa tuloy ng bagong calculator si renzo

naghanap tuloy ng bagong calculator si renzo

anyway the basic concept as i said it before

2* (9+3) = 2*1(9+3)

whereas
2(9+3) ! = 2*1(9+3)

another one is
2(12) = 2*12
but when this 2(12) is an expression will not result to 2*12

if someone can prove here that
2(9+3) == 2*1(9+3)

then i'll go for 288


for someone who used excel or google
the expression formatted "reprogrammed" to (48/2) * (9+3) para matanggal ung tinatawag na "ambiguity"

[niwde11]

ilapit nyo na sa isang "math genius/wizard" yan. kung ano sagot nya.....yun na. wala nang mahabang discussion pa........

already done that. we have the same answer.:D

[rene_tagle]

naghanap tuloy ng bagong calculator si renzo

anyway the basic concept as i said it before

2* (9+3) = 2*1(9+3)

whereas
2(9+3) ! = 2*1(9+3)

another one is
2(12) = 2*12
but when this 2(12) is an expression will not result to 2*12

if someone can prove here that
2(9+3) == 2*1(9+3)

then i'll go for 288


for someone who used excel or google
the expression formatted "reprogrammed" to (48/2) * (9+3) para matanggal ung tinatawag na "ambiguity"

haha! pati excel at google gusto i-correct. sobrang genius.

dapat kayo magprove na one entity itong 2(9+3), kasi kapag () ibig sabihin nyan plain multiplication lang, wala ako maresearch na hindi pwede iseperate itong 2(9+3).

yung iba naman ginagamitan pa ng symbols na a, ab,ac,bc etc. e given na nga lahat ng figures e, simple lang compute na lang using pemdas rule, ganun lang kasimple.

[vito corleone]

1. haha! pati excel at google gusto i-correct. sobrang genius.

2. dapat kayo magprove na one entity itong 2(9+3), kasi kapag () ibig sabihin nyan plain multiplication lang, wala ako maresearch na hindi pwede iseperate itong 2(9+3).

3. yung iba naman ginagamitan pa ng symbols na a, ab,ac,bc etc. e given na nga lahat ng figures e, simple lang compute na lang using pemdas rule, ganun lang kasimple.

1. tama naman si jansky, pinapalitan ng excel yung expression to "48/2*(9+3)" kaya 288 ang lumalabas na sagot

2. it was written as "2(9+3)" because it was not meant to be "2x(9+3)"

3. sagutin mo kahit sa sarili mo, honestly, yung tanong ni niky (which i highlighted in red). . .pemdas rule din naman inaaply namin na ang sagot e 2

[renzo_d10]

1. tama naman si jansky, pinapalitan ng excel yung expression to "48/2*(9+3)" kaya 288 ang lumalabas na sagot

2. it was written as "2(9+3)" because it was not meant to be "2x(9+3)"

3. sagutin mo kahit sa sarili mo, honestly, yung tanong ni niky (which i highlighted in red). . .pemdas rule din naman inaaply namin na ang sagot e 2

Wala na siyang reaction tungkol sa BAGONG calculator ko ano ... ?

Hindi niya na masabing mali kasi luma eh. Hehehe.

Sinabing 2 naman kasi ang sagot .. ang kulit.

And oh btw, MAJORITY WINS.

[CVT]

Magpakitaan na lang ang mga tao rito ng diploma.... :hysterical:

12.8K:toma:

[CVT]

For a health professional,- Bro.niky knows his Math....

12.8K:toma:

[rene_tagle]

Wala na siyang reaction tungkol sa BAGONG calculator ko ano ... ?

Hindi niya na masabing mali kasi luma eh. Hehehe.

Sinabing 2 naman kasi ang sagot .. ang kulit.

And oh btw, MAJORITY WINS.

haha makulit pala ako , iba iba ang sagot ng calculator kaya hindi dependable and accurate yung pinapakita mong calcu, kaya nga nagkakaroon ng confusion sa sagot dahil sa mga lintik na calculator na iba-iba ang sagot kahit same brand pa, kaya nga may discussion or arguments para i-explain kung paano na derive yung sagot na 2 or 288. ang sakin lang dito kung may makakapagbigay lang na rule na one entity lang ang 2(9+3) e di 2 na din ang sagot ko, since wala talaga my answer is 288, pero kung ikaw ang naka-imbento ng mathematics then sige na 2 na din sagot ko para di ka na makulitan.

[vito corleone]

double post

[vito corleone]

call off the dogs, the hunt is over

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


[SIZE=2]This next example displays an issue that almost never arises but, when it does, there seems to be no end to the arguing.[/SIZE]

• [SIZE=2]Simplify[/SIZE][SIZE=3] 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1[/SIZE][SIZE=2].[/SIZE]
  
  • [SIZE=3]16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=3]= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=3]= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=3]= 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 [/SIZE][SIZE=3](**)[/SIZE][SIZE=3] = 16 ÷ 4 + 1[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=3]= 4 + 1[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=3]= [/SIZE][SIZE=3]5[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]The confusing part in the above calculation is how "[/SIZE][SIZE=3]16[/SIZE][SIZE=2] divided by[/SIZE][SIZE=3] 2[2] + 1[/SIZE][SIZE=2]" (in the line marked with the double-star) becomes "[/SIZE][SIZE=3]16[/SIZE][SIZE=2] divided by[/SIZE][SIZE=3] 4 + 1[/SIZE][SIZE=2]", instead of "[/SIZE][SIZE=3]8[/SIZE][SIZE=2] times by [/SIZE][SIZE=3]2 + 1[/SIZE][SIZE=2]". That's because, even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses outrank division, so the first [/SIZE][SIZE=3]2[/SIZE][SIZE=2] goes with the [/SIZE][SIZE=3][2][/SIZE][SIZE=2], rather than with the "[/SIZE][SIZE=3]16[/SIZE][SIZE=2] divided by". That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy:[/SIZE]

• 

16/2(8-3(4-2))+1 = 5

16/2(8) = 1 (w/ parentheses)
16/2*8 = 64 (w/o parentheses)



[SIZE=2]Note that [/SIZE][SIZE=2]different software will process this differently[/SIZE][SIZE=2]; even different models of Texas Instruments graphing calculators will process this differently. In cases of ambiguity, be very careful of your parentheses, and make your meaning clear. The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask![/SIZE]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


reference: http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm


now, tell me the answer is still 288!

[kinyo]

if you were given the equation y = 48/2x

and was told x=12

would you say y = 288?

[vito corleone]

if you were given the equation y = 48/2x

and was told x=12

would you say y = 288?

bro, awat na. . .look up, pinost ko na yung huling pako sa kabaong ng 288

[JJCarEnthusiast]

but if you read it in layman term this where the issue come in

48÷2(9+3) forty eight divided by two (duhhh).. then stop
while
48 ÷ 2 x (9+3). forthy eight divided by two times

in english it should be read as forty-eight divided by 2 multiplied to the whole quantity of nine plus three.

my answer is 2. kung 48/[2(9+3)]=2, and kung (48/2)(9+3)=288, but it was 48/2(9+3). the basics of algebra tells you that you need to eliminate the parenthesis first, so applying the distributive property of equality i then becomes

48/24

hence

=2.

grabe tong thread na to hahaha

[jansky]

lesson learned..

dont trust calculato
pages going to 16 and yet wala pa tayo naririnig kay OB.. interesado ako sa magiging sagot nya

[kinyo]

call off the dogs, the hunt is over

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

... That's because, even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses outrank division ...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

reference: http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm

now, tell me the answer is still 288!

ayun tapos na boksing!

and i like his last words too

As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!

[kinyo]

bro, awat na. . .look up, pinost ko na yung huling pako sa kabaong ng 288

sensya na bossing ... medyo napa-arangkada kaya hirap ang preno

kinukutuban lang akong meron pa gustong humirit jan

[phezthie]

You guys are still at it?

Let's be clear... the PEMDAS rule is a red herring.

it's not about whether you do the multiplication or division first, but about implicit and explicit expression... which though some claim is not a hard and fast rule, is still a rule given advanced math.

Let's write this form as an algebraic expression:

48/2(9+3)... we're clear that 9+3 is done first, whatever else may hold, so:

48/2(12)

Now, let's write it as thus:

48 = a
2 = b
12 = c

Now, we can rewrite it as thus:

a/bc

So... can anyone who's actually studied math claim that:

a/bc =

ac
b

instead of:

a
bc

The first gives you 288. The second gives you 2.

To actually get ac/b, you need to rewrite the expression as thus: a/b*c.

Since no explicit "*" or "x" sign is used, you regard the whole as part of the denominator, using the division sign as a grouping sign (fractional)... which is exactly what the division sign is.

eh kung straight line tapos 288 ang sagot, dapat ang equation ay:

(48/2)(9+3) = 288
or

[48*(9+3)]/2


This is why i maintain na 2 yung sagot given na 48/2(9+3) yung straight line equation na binigay.

pre, ayaw nyo lang tanggapin ang explanation kaya it seems complicated. . .try answering the red portion below. . .kahit sa sarili mo na lang





same point with niky, walang "*" or "x" sign sa pagitan ng 2 at (9+3) kaya di sila dapat paghiwalayin

natatawa ako sa ibang nagsasabi dito na ang sagot ay 288, some of their arguments/explanations actually support and direct the answer to 2


ayan, napabili pa tuloy ng bagong calculator si renzo

lesson learned..

dont trust calculato
pages going to 16 and yet wala pa tayo naririnig kay OB.. interesado ako sa magiging sagot nya

pwede ba sumali lier este lawyer? hehehe my answer is 2...

matagal na ako wala sa MIT (Mapua not Malayan or Massachusetts btw) but i can still recall na you cannot simply enter all mathematical equations in your calculator unless you're certain that what you have (your calc ha) follows the golden rule "Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally". It stands for "Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication and Division, and Addition and Subtraction".

the only instance you can immediately divide 48 by 2, that is without bothering on the other numbers in the equation given, is if its inside a parenthesis (48/2). that way, you can have the 288.

but that is not the case in the problem given...

likewise, i just want to share, i hope my memory serves me right, that a number followed by parenthesis does not need the * or X symbol. its automatic multiplication... my cent

[rene_tagle]

call off the dogs, the hunt is over

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

hahaha ang galing talaga ni sir vito, eto yung hinahanap kong sagot (multiplication by juxtaposition) para mag-change ako sa answer na 2. very clear explanation sir! now i think its time to debate with my pamangkins.