Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Woden(OD)

troll math

Recommended Posts

Troll Math: 48÷2(9+3) = 2 or 288?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following the order of operations, the answer is 288. If you think the answer is 2, you're not trolling, you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add that my answer is strictly mathematical. There are, of course, programming languages which will evaluate expressions of equal priority from right to left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know it's 288, but it seems that a lot of people don't know the order of operations and think it's 2. was wondering what you guys would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping for a challenging question (multivariable calculus, anyone?). -.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is most definetly 2.

PEMDAS

parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction

Step 1: (9+3) = 12

Step 2: 2(12) = 24

Step 3: 48 ÷ 24 = 2

Answer = 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is most definetly 2.

PEMDAS

parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction

Step 1: (9+3) = 12

Step 2: 2(12) = 24

Step 3: 48 ÷ 24 = 2

Answer = 2

Broseph multiplication and division are the same thing so you would divide first since its on the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping for a challenging question (multivariable calculus, anyone?). -.-

I'm down for some calculus. :)

The answer is most definetly 2.

PEMDAS

parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction

Step 1: (9+3) = 12

Step 2: 2(12) = 24

Step 3: 48 ÷ 24 = 2

Answer = 2

Broseph multiplication and division are the same thing so you would divide first since its on the left.

He's trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is most definetly 2.

PEMDAS

parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction

Step 1: (9+3) = 12

Step 2: 2(12) = 24

Step 3: 48 ÷ 24 = 2

Answer = 2

He's trolling.

You're probably confused (or trolling). Maybe if I write it like this, it'll help:

P

E

DM

AS

See what I did there? Division and multiplication are logically the exact same function, as are addition and subtraction. Therefore you cannot prioritize division over multiplication, that would make no sense. The proper way to evaluate an expression which contains only multiplication and division is to evaluate from left to right. In the OP's expression there is one set of brackets, so evaluate the brackets, then evaluate left to right.

Edited by Ancient

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is most definetly 2.

PEMDAS

parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction

Step 1: (9+3) = 12

Step 2: 2(12) = 24

Step 3: 48 ÷ 24 = 2

Answer = 2

He's trolling.

You're probably confused (or trolling). Maybe if I write it like this, it'll help:

P

E

DM

AS

See what I did there? Division and multiplication are logically the exact same function, as are addition and subtraction. Therefore you cannot prioritize division over multiplication, that would make no sense. The proper way to evaluate an expression which contains only multiplication and division is to evaluate from left to right. In the OP's expression there is one set of brackets, so evaluate the brackets, then evaluate left to right.

So, I did a quick search and I think the mistake comes from assuming a number next to a parenthesis on the outside part takes priority over division/multiplication. Example: 5%2(4). There is an invisible multiply sign between 2 and 4, therefore considering operations go from left to right, division is due to be made first.

This is the example I found that contained and explained how he got to the conclusion that the number outside the parenthesis takes priority.

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

* Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1.

16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1

= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1

= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1

= 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 (**)

= 16 ÷ 4 + 1

= 4 + 1

= 5

The confusing part in the above calculation is how "16 divided by 2[2] + 1" (in the line marked with the double-star) becomes "16 divided by 4 + 1", instead of "8 times by 2 + 1". 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 2 goes with the [2], rather than with the "16 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:

post-519-0-77259300-1302722857_thumb.gif

Note that different software will process this differently; 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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R.ag just shit on you nerds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lold at ultra-math-rag stomp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long story short:

5(2) == 5*2 != (5(2))

This should be common sense. however R.ag makes it pretty boring and elongated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long story short:

5(2) == 5*2 != (5(2))

This should be common sense. however R.ag makes it pretty boring and elongated.

My 2 lines of text must had been overwhelming for you. I can see that as I read it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right; the fact that you had to run a search on basic principles does overwhelm me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right; the fact that you had to run a search on basic principles does overwhelm me.

I know!. I first put it in my scientific calc and it returned the value of 2. I wanted to find out a little more about why was it making that mistake. I'm amazed that you know how calculators are programmed and can explain why were they programmed like that. Good job sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've mentioned, I have a degree in engineering. I also have experience in building compilers, which requires defining the semantics for certain operations, including the order of mathematical operations. This would be directly related to how a calculator interprets your input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've mentioned, I have a degree in engineering. I also have experience in building compilers, which requires defining the semantics for certain operations, including the order of mathematical operations. This would be directly related to how a calculator interprets your input.

Then perhaps you could explain why a scientific calculator (Casio fx-82MS) makes this mistake. Was it just bad programming or does it serves a purpose?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't serve a purpose per se, however I'm sure they had their reasons fo implementing it the way they did. If I had to guess, it's because in most practical applications the expression would indeed evaluate to 2, not to 288. Take for instance:

a

--------

b(c+d)

This is the most likely scenario for the general form of the original expression. This equation implicitly defines an additional set of parentheses around the expression b(c+d), however

a ÷ b * (c+d)

does not. It really depends on the perceived applications and statistical usage. I'm not a programmer for Texas Instruments, so I can't guarantee that my answer is correct, but I'd say it's highly probable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in other words... who ever builded that Casio calculator...TROLLED!!!

I'm glad I am in a law school rather than doing math courses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know it's 288, but it seems that a lot of people don't know the order of operations and think it's 2. was wondering what you guys would think.

I think that you're a moron for thinking this is trolling

Honestly, I don't understand why you all flame me for doing it when you fail to define the actual act of trolling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know it's 288, but it seems that a lot of people don't know the order of operations and think it's 2. was wondering what you guys would think.

I think that you're a moron for thinking this is trolling

Honestly, I don't understand why you all flame me for doing it when you fail to define the actual act of trolling

Cause you don't troll with class but Rob is correct this math equation isn't trolling lawl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't understand why you all flame me for doing it when you fail to define the actual act of trolling

If Woden represented the entire clan's intellect then your statement might have some merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×