manta

You first do 9+3=12 then multiply it by 2=24 then divide 48/24=[2].


Reading more into it, it should've been more like:
48(12)
2

__________________

Nerox

Really, a discussion with animefan again?

Numinous

That's because you are inclined for it to be (2/3)*4. The fact is, without the appropriate annotations, the equation that I presented is ambiguous, so (2/3)*4 and 2/(3*4) have the same weight in the validity of the answer.

I just presented a simple example. But if you don't trust me on this interchangeability, just look at wikipedia:

So doing the multiplication or the division first shouldn't be a problem, since they are of equal importance and everybody should come up with the same answer since they (should) follow the same rules. But 2 and 288 have the same validity as answers to your equation, which shouldn't happen if the equation wasn't faulty in the first place.

And about "intelligence", no less. It's a pattern!

__________________

manta

Yep, really sounds like something he got from /b/

EDIT: Yep, he did.

__________________

AniMeFaN

im not inclined to say its (2/3)*4, that is how you read the equation, multiplication and division are equal so you do the equation from left to right in a situation with both. its order of operations.



how is the equation faulty, its an equation. there has to be a definitive school of thought and consensus on this but the equation isnt faulty. most people actuayll accept the answer as 2.

"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"

ACt

The way I was taught, when you use the division sign, it is the same as saying:

48/2(9+3)

Everything after it is in the denominator. Therefore, the answer is:

= 48/2*12
= 48/24
= 2

If you go after a different answer, you are relying on a different definition of that sign. But for me, because it resembles a fraction with a dot above and a dot below, it is the separating marker for the equation.

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

Numinous

Except that's how YOU read the equation. For me, since both operations have the same weight, the lack of proper annotation makes both (2/3)*4 and 2/(3*4) have the same validity. There's a reason for brackets in math, and this is it: to indicate which is the pivotal operation.

But it lacks proper annotation! Nobody is saying the equation is nonsensical, I'm only saying that it'll lead to ambiguity, which already has: you say 2, kluang says 288. And both of you solved the equation with equally valid processes. Now tell me how that happens if it isn't faulty?

It's called using brackets. Give it a try sometime.

So it was 500 in 1000, now is most people? Make up your mind, will you?

@ bolded: consensus=/= rule. I know of people that use juxtaposition for exponential. I don't do that, since most quimiobiophysic equations use the consensus you referenced, but since politeness is never enough, use "x" or "*" to indicate the multiplication.

But you said:
So is 48/2=24=>24*(9+3)=>24*12=288

But, like ACt said, if you consider the ÷ as a separation of fraction, it's 48/(2*(9+3))=48/(2*12)=48/24=2

See? You just backed up both claims, which shouldn't happen in a proper equation.

__________________

AniMeFaN

yes that is how I read it, which is the correct way. you do it from left to right with equal operations, that is the correct way whether YOU do it or not

that happens when not everyone go's along with the consensus and sovles it a differnet way, doesnt mean its faulty.



well act is wrong because / doesnt meant seperation of a fraction, it means to divide. if the equation was written 48 / 2 x (9+3) he would still get 2 and it would be 288

Numinous

Except it can lead to false results depending on the how the problem is presented, because I guarantee you that there are pairs OF situations that can be written down with the same operations in the same sequence, but one operation will have priority in one situation compared to the other, which might have another operation with priority, therefore brackets are needed to indicate what is that pivotal operation.

Sue me if you think I'm obsessed with brackets, but I think they are essential for the understanding of equations that have operations with the same weight in the same "level" of the equation (I don't know the correct term in English, but when I mean "level", I mean how they are inside or outside certain brackets).

I just showed how I went along with an aspect of the consensus and got 288 and ACt went with another and got 2. They have the same validity because they were solved with the consensus. The problem is the equation's for not having enough annotation.

Yes, it does. Numerator/denominator is the consensus for fractions, so he indeed went with the separation and got 2. It just happens to ALSO mean division in mathematics.

You just proved how faulty this equation is: you even contradict yourself.

So you say you think it's 2, say that ÷ is the same as /, but when someone (like ACt) uses it as fraction, you say the correct answer would be 288.

THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN WITH EQUATIONS THAT AREN'T FAULTY!

__________________

AniMeFaN

im not responding to your whole post because i jsut dont care enough to. order of operations says you go left to right with equal operations. you are wrong to look at it another way. i did not prove anything faulty. a division sign does not mean to set it up as a fraction. if it was 48 /( 2 x (9+3)) then you could set it up as the denominator but since its set up 48 / 2 x (9+3) its
step 1. 48 / 2 x (12)
step 2. 24 x (12)
step 3. 288

Numinous

But it means it CAN be set up as a fraction, it just doesn't mean that's always the case.

First, you didn't treat it as 48/2*(9+3), you treated it as (48/2)*(9+3). See how brackets make a difference? Second, you have no proof it isn't to be treated as a fraction, since THE ANNOTATION THAT WOULD CLARIFY IF IT'S A DIVISION OR A FRACTION IS ABSENT. Therefore it's faulty!

Will you stop treating faulty stuff as functional?


Edit: Oh, and you changed your mind about the result? Was it because you didn't think at first or the equation is ambiguous enough for you to change sides?

__________________

AniMeFaN

it doesnt mean you can set it up as a fraction, if you arent dividing by the rest of the equation you cant take the whole thing and treat it as you are by setting it up as a fraction.

what dont you understand about order of operations, 48/2*(9+3) is suppose to be treated as (48/2) x (9+3). that is the order of operations, you solve in the bracket, the you go from left to right.




i did not change my mind once.

Numinous

But the equation you showed doesn't reveal that because there's mathematical symbols missing for it to show exactly what you said.

But since it's valid to treat / or ÷ as an indicator of fraction, what ACt did is also valid in this equation, it just follows a different aspect of the mathematical consensus. I repeat, brackets exist for a reason, it's just not for making the equation look pretty.

O'rly?

And I rest my case here. I have better things to do than doing a math version of the IQ test explanation that you still don't get.

__________________

AniMeFaN

you have it backwards, what you are trying to do is missing symbols

its no valid to unless its one term which its not



"i did not change my mind once. "


"so whats your answer? i lean towards 2 "


"how is the equation faulty, its an equation. there has to be a definitive school of thought and consensus on this but the equation isnt faulty. most people actuayll accept the answer as 2. "


"well act is wrong because / doesnt meant seperation of a fraction, it means to divide. if the equation was written 48 / 2 x (9+3) he would still get 2 and it would be 288 "




you dont rest any case you idiot, i already posted this about the juxtaposition, that equation doesnt have it so it would be 288. i have not changed one thing i have said the entire time


"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"

ACt

Seriously - are we still discussing after we all agreed it was a vague and poorly arranged math equation that intentionally leads to disagreement?

Also, you completely misinterpreted my definition of "÷", half because you didn't read the word "denominator" and half because when I wrote out my answer, I didn't put in the proper brackets to be completely clear - which is the whole problem.

When I say it separates out the left side into numerator and right side as denominator, I mean 48 is the numerator and 2(9+3) is the denominator or:

48
2(9+3)

Or to be completely clear:

48/(2*(9+3))

Clear? I'm not wrong because it is how I interpret the question based on what I was taught - in like grade 4!. (I think it was also commonly taught in Canada that when given such equations, you would often progress from left to right on even order of operations, such as division and multiplying.) Quit not understanding whether intentional or not.

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.