If its 48/ 24 as people are suggesting, then there has to be a parenthesis around the 2*12.... Its 24 * 12
http://www3.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%C3%B7-%289%2B3%29 http://www3.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%C3%B7-1%289%2B3%29 Does not compute
Well, as people have stated already, that is not how it was taught years ago. The question would then come up: why the parenthesis in the first place? My understanding is that parenthesis usually denoted variables in the purpose of the the created equation to begin with. So it was taught to be read that a number directly touching a set within parenthesis was specifically intended to be a multiplier of the results within the parenthesis, hence it gets next priority. It was the whole purpose of placing a numeral directly next to a parenthetic set, else it would not have been written that way. The implication is that the formula is intended to introduce a set of variables, achieve a result, then multiply that result by 2, then go through the rest of the equation. In other words (2(x+y)) As others have said, it's simply a poorly-written equation. Clearly the conflict comes from what was taught about what is supposed to happen when a numeral is directly next to a parenthetic set. Nowadays, it is apparently not looked at as anything different than another * in the equation line. Didn't used to be that way. But, ok, so they teach it differently now, but either way, it should have been written more clearly. And why are people talking about trolling? Do people really think that having learned something different years ago makes people trolls?
48/-(9+3) only distributes the negative to the denominator. 48/-1(9+3) would divide the 48 by a -1 and multiply that by 12. That's just the way it works by convention.
This is not the same question. Anyway you look at it you are pulling the 2 away from the parentheses. Or instead you do the opposite you remove the parentheses and say that the 2 is just part of the left/right multiplication division. Anyway you want to look at it, those who get 288 are changing math operational order more than once and then claiming that left to right operation is the only valid method which is wrong.
LOL, I guess there's debate in the smart headquarters of Wolfram too. I guess it depends on how you interpret a "-" sign. If you only think of it as a simple flip of sign for whatever follows, the first is correct. If you think of it as multiplying as -1, as you and I did, the second one is correct. The original question has nothing to do with a sign though, so 288 is still correct.
Clearly, the way convention is taught these days is different. It would be much better if it was (48/-1)(9+3) Like I said in my original post, the formula is too vague. Even excel forces you to choose to correct to =48/-2*(9+3).
Microsoft Office Excel found an error in the formula you entered. Do you want to accept the correction proposed below? =48/2*(9+3)
You see, I don't think you can though! A number before a parenthesis CLEARLY means multiplication while a negative sign (which you used to argue), could either mean a flip of a sign or actually multiplying by -1, which I concede is vague. If it's a multiplication, the division part comes first because it's on the left.
Order of operations says Parenthesis first. So 9+3 = 12. Then Multiplication/Division in order from left to right. So first is 48/2. That equals 24. So then it's 24 x 12.
Apparently it was taught different back in the day. Or... some people just don't remember PEMDAS very well.
Excel, by the way, does not allow something like 2(3) to be considered a multiplication because you can easily have a typo and not put a sign between a number and a parenthesis and produce a wrong number. Say you meant to type 2/(3+5) but you type too fast and forget to put the "/" and type 2(3+5) instead. Would you rather have Excel warn you that something's wrong there or have Excel say that the answer is 30 instead of .25?
