48÷2(9+3) = ??

I was working on a flat tax proposal, and I accidentally proved there’s no god.

hahaha ^

Oh i'll bring it

Wait, that's what this is.

This is in the tax code, isn't it? That's where all the trouble started. Now it's all clear....

Jay wrote: In reply to mtn: xy is NOT always the same as x × y or x * y.

In basic arithmetic, it is. This is basic arithmetic.

Jay said: No, it's not the same! 2x is clearly one unit in the denominator. You CANNOT claim 48/2x = (48/2)x. Writing "48 ÷ 2 × x" may or may not include x in the denominator, I'd say it's a bit ambiguous. That looks to me more like (48/2)x.

2x is not one unit. 2x is two operands, 2x is 2(x) is 2*x, and once again we are back to the order of operations.

Answer: 288
Notation: Extremely poor.

Jay said: If I had that question on a test I'd go argue with the prof until he clarified it.

At least we agree on one thing.

Also, if we're going to get really technical here, note that I'm using:
x <-- letter x, and
× <-- unicode multiplication symbol

to keep things clear. This font makes them look freaking identical though. ("*" is actually a different operation (complex conjugate, specific type of vector multiplication, or convolution when working with time series) even though its common usage in computer languages is for multiplication. "Fortunately" it generally "collapses" to a multiplication when working with simple 1D numbers. Otherwise all mathematicians and computer programmers everywhere would have been at war since the '50s.)

mtn wrote: 2x is not one unit. 2x is two operands, 2x is 2(x) is 2*x, and once again we are back to the order of operations.

Woah, wait, "operands"... I think he wins.

Jay wrote: complex conjugate, specific type of vector multiplication, or convolution when working with time series

Wow, not so fast! Did you make that up? If you didn't make that up that does put you right back in the hunt.

Okay, carry on.

mtn wrote:

Jay wrote: In reply to mtn: xy is NOT always the same as x × y or x * y.

In basic arithmetic, it is. This is basic arithmetic.

As soon as there was a bracketed expression and an operator involved, this ceased to be basic arithmetic. It only looks like it is. It's algebra now.

2x is not one unit. 2x is two operands, 2x is 2(x) is 2*x, and once again we are back to the order of operations.

You can't evaluate 2x as separate operands! Everything you do to the 2, you must do to the x at the same time!

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Jay wrote: complex conjugate, specific type of vector multiplication, or convolution when working with time series

Wow, not so fast! Did you make that up? If you didn't make that up that does put you right back in the hunt.

He didn't make it up, he is correct here. I am aware of this; I'm just using "*" to avoid confusion with "x". And I don't know where you get your fancy multiplication sign and don't want to copy and paste all the time.

And to further the discussion, my view on it is that the missing operator doesn't give it an implicit precedence in the order of operation. Stick the "x" or "*" in there and be done with it.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Jay wrote: complex conjugate, specific type of vector multiplication, or convolution when working with time series

Wow, not so fast! Did you make that up? If you didn't make that up that does put you right back in the hunt. Okay, carry on.

I sure as hell didn't make that up. Spent four years in uni doing vector calculus, complex numbers, differential equations, time series analysis, and loads of other fun stuff just so I could stomp around volcanos and earthquake fault zones and pretend to know what I'm doing. Good times.

mtn wrote: And to further the discussion, my view on it is that the missing operator doesn't give it an implicit precedence in the order of operation. Stick the "x" or "*" in there and be done with it.

Well that's what I thought. I can't find any reference that says the bracket bumping into a number over-rides the order of operations. And there's no order of operations rule I can find that says anything other than multiplication and division go left to right.

Jay wrote: I sure as hell didn't make that up. Spent four years in uni doing vector calculus, complex numbers, differential equations, time series analysis, and loads of other fun stuff just so I could stomp around volcanos and earthquake fault zones and pretend to know what I'm doing. Good times.

I didn't really think you made that up. I intended some humor in my post. I thought it was funny when you two started whipping out the big words.

Otto Maddox wrote: I was working on a flat tax proposal, and I accidentally proved there’s no god.

Oh man... time to get hammered!!!!

Jay wrote: You can't evaluate 2x as separate operands! Everything you do to the 2, you must do to the x at the same time!

I'll just answer myself here to head off anyone else who might spot the mistake I made. What if you have 2x² (or 2x^2 if you want to write it that way)? Obviously you don't evaluate that as (2x)² and you do appear to "separate" the x component from the 2 component. The answer is that the new operands are 2 and x² rather than 2 and x. If you let y=x² than you have 2y and it stays exactly the same thing.

facepalm

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I didn't really think you made that up. I intended some humor in my post. I thought it was funny when you two started whipping out the big words.

Yeah, I know. I got that. My tongue is kinda in cheek writing up my rapid-fire replies to this thread. It's all in good fun. Been a while since I've gotten to argue maths with people.

...But I'm still right.

Jay wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I didn't really think you made that up. I intended some humor in my post. I thought it was funny when you two started whipping out the big words.

Yeah, I know. I got that. My tongue is kinda in cheek writing up my rapid-fire replies to this thread. It's all in good fun. Been a while since I've gotten to argue maths with people. ...But I'm still right.

Same here.

...And I'm still right

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: snip

No offense, but are you being difficult or obtuse? You didn't do what I said AT ALL lol

but in the end, you want an MX5 because it's a cat, which oversteers...which is more fun

Does this have something to do with a gerund? No? Oh, that's English. Wrong class.

Carry on.

all of us in a classroom right now.....this would be an interesting period LOL when's study hall?

HiTempguy wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: snip

No offense, but are you being difficult or obtuse? You didn't do what I said AT ALL lol

I swear i'm not.... just illustrating that 2 works for that. I hope i didn't mess something up badly. That would be embarrassing.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I swear i'm not.... just illustrating that 2 works for that. I hope i didn't mess something up badly. That would be embarrassing.

I apparently didn't explain myself well enough then, I thought you were trolling me (your mathz are right for the way you wrote it). When I get home from work in 30 minutes, I will write out what I meant

HiTempguy wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I swear i'm not.... just illustrating that 2 works for that. I hope i didn't mess something up badly. That would be embarrassing.

I apparently didn't explain myself well enough then, I thought you were trolling me (your mathz are right for the way you wrote it). When I get home from work in 30 minutes, I will write out what I meant

I have been guilty of malicious trolling in the past.... but i keep that off these boards, because i like the people on them.

awww you like us!

I say it is 288 becarze: you cannot distribute the 2(9+3) without first dealing with the division sign so you get 48/2(9+3)=24(9+3)=216+72=288