General Discussions

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

Haha, I don't think he meant 2 factorial, I think he was just exclaiming that it was 2.

Lol.
Yeah I was actually tellin' half of the CHU that it is 2. Still 2!=2

the only way it would be 288 is if it was written like this

48
--*(9+3)
2

But the original equation is not written like that if it was it would be

(48/2)(9+3)

Link
I was wondering where you got this question from. Just got this on my feed today and smiled when i saw it.
I still say the answer's 288 tho :X

Guys, the order of operation is this.
1. Parentheses.
2. Exponents or Radicals.
3. Working from left to right, multiplication and division.
4. Working from left to right, addition and subtraction.
Just watch out and keep in mind , from left to right for multiplication, division, addition and subtraction.

@Moorey: That's correct. This is the same equation with one extra parentheses that changed the final results.
48/2(9+3) = 288
48 / (2(9+3)) = 2

@DABhand
Those two, (48/2)*(9+3) and 48/2*(9+3) are the same, but they are totally different from this one 48 /(2*(9+3)).
Just type them in a excel sheet or a programming language to check the results.

the probem we're having here is caused by new mathematical theories and solutions,which contradict the theories and solutions before.this problem would be easily solved if there is a much accurate way,i mean 1 universal theories and solutions for each problem,rather than creating new 1 and letting it be ok as well as the older 1,world mathematicians should discuss this problem about theories and solutions like the scientists does.measuring force would be ridiculous if a new solution is made while it's ok to use the older solution,both solutions would conflict and it would be students,and people who would suffer on arguments about theories and solutions...


in old solution and theory,they explain that multiplication should be 1st solved then division,but a new theory and solution came up with divison 1st before multiplication,and they're both ok to co-exist?that's not right...



[Edited by teslagod2003, 4/12/2011 1:13:29 PM]

I am sure Archimedes would say 2!

And like I have said..

48/2(9x+3x) or 48/2x(9+3) would lead to 48/24x, thusly by general rule of thumb the same has to be true for 48/2(9+3)

Because the (9+3) is tied to the 2 not 48/2 which some people think.

[Edited by DABhand, 4/12/2011 4:05:24 PM]