[EmxATW5m]

This is something new? My 20 year old Ti-85 has this issue. The trick is to put the multiplication symbol in between the 2 and the parentheses and the calculator will perform the operation correctly.

Yeah, the issue is that you shouldn't need to put it there - what's also worrying is how many people are apparently being taught wrong about basic rules of math and they get 2 as result too

[hexniks]

Yeah, the issue is that you shouldn't need to put it there - what's also worrying is how many people are apparently being taught wrong about basic rules of math and they get 2 as result too

Totally agree, what the hell is up with that?

[KukkoDrukko]

Yeah, the issue is that you shouldn't need to put it there - what's also worrying is how many people are apparently being taught wrong about basic rules of math and they get 2 as result too

I also got 2 as my answer. I also seem to remember also being taught in school that when you've got a number next to the parenthesis (indicating multiplication) you do that multiplication first before the left to right rule.

I showed it to my friend who is in Calc II and he even came up with 2 at first, until he said it kind of depends on how you read it. He said it's a pretty poor way of the equation being written in the first place. He also said that Casio's suck.

EDIT: For clarification, I read the equation as 48 / 2( 9 + 3 ) and not 48 / 2 ( 9 + 3 ).

[MatueHarton]

Totally agree, what the hell is up with that?

Does it matter? We were never taught to deal with sums that vague. Plus, it's never going to crop up in reality because your always going to know to approach a real world equation.

[EmxATW5m]

I also got 2 as my answer. I also seem to remember also being taught in school that when you've got a number next to the parenthesis (indicating multiplication) you do that multiplication first before the left to right rule.

I showed it to my friend who is in Calc II and he even came up with 2 at first, until he said it kind of depends on how you read it. He said it's a pretty poor way of the equation being written in the first place. He also said that Casio's suck.

EDIT: For clarification, I read the equation as 48 / 2( 9 + 3 ) and not 48 / 2 ( 9 + 3 ).

2 ( 9 + 3 ), 2( 9 + 3 ) - it's irrelevant - at least last time I checked for example order of operations (algebra) there was no mentions whatsoever that multiplication next to parenthesis should somehow be calculated before other multiplications.

[hexniks]

Does it matter? We were never taught to deal with sums that vague. Plus, it's never going to crop up in reality because your always going to know to approach a real world equation.

There is absolutely nothing vague about it. About it never cropping, I suppose it depends on what you choose to do after school, I can see it never being a problem for a cook for example. However high school should prepare students to pursue any career path and it baffles me that people start a degree in physics, mathematics or IT with such fundamentally lacking algebra skills.

[9mm_fan]

There is absolutely nothing vague about it.

He is right. If you are getting 2, then you are doing it wrong.

[MatueHarton]

It's vague for the reason that no exam questions are that confusing whilst being so simple. The actual maths involved isn't tricky. But if many people and some calculators get it wrong, then it's not laid out how it should be. I know it's very easy for us all to pretend we get it because it's the internet and we're all totally genius. I've done a lot of algebra and never have I had to apply a left to right rule in order to get the right answer. Could be the failing of my education but I don't think so.

[hexniks]

It's vague for the reason that no exam questions are that confusing whilst being so simple. The actual maths involved isn't tricky. But if many people and some calculators get it wrong, then it's not laid out how it should be. I know it's very easy for us all to pretend we get it because it's the internet and we're all totally genius. I've done a lot of algebra and never have I had to apply a left to right rule in order to get the right answer. Could be the failing of my education but I don't think so.

You never had to apply a left to right rule? What? Never had a multiplication come after a division? Seriously, you don't have to be or pretend to be a genius to get this right

After some googling it seems that order of operations is being taught in 6th grade, though the site I found is talking about the US school system.

[Goodwin]

I've done a lot of algebra and never have I had to apply a left to right rule in order to get the right answer. Could be the failing of my education but I don't think so.

Hate to say this but you're right: it's a failing of your education. The quality of the teaching of mathematics in the UK is variable, to put it politely, and the "left-to-right" reading of operations is often missed (mostly due to an over-reliance on BODMAS). You're also right in that the likelihood of one ever being issued with a mathematical problem of the ilk 48 / 2 ( 9 + 3 ) is near zero but I think you're missing the point a bit. Since multiplication is commutative, students get by with nearly every formula they come across without ever having to really think about the algebraic rules.

It doesn't matter how clear the original expression was or, for that matter, what anybody was really taught though. It's that there is no consistency amongst calculator manufacturers or much in the way of adherence to mathematical standards. The expression 48 / 2 ( 9 + 3 ) [sic] is "48 ÷ 2 x (9 +3)" and every machine should recognise this; that every student does not is no surprise though.

[Ingeborga]

Why do people keep saying multiplication and division are equally important operands - surely they're not?
Multiplication would work anywhere, as would addition, but division is a specific ordered term, as is a minus.
By that I mean the first two can be in either order but the latter two have a specific order.
It's been about 40 years () since I did this in school, but have a fuzzy idea multiplication was before division. IRL, whenever I've had something like that, I've written it to avoid confusion and I'm thinking I want another 40 years before I see them again [surrender]

As has been said, for most people it isn't relevant in our working lives but for others, like theoretical scientists, I expect they may have a considererable number of terms to figure out and it's very important that they are correctly calculated.

Seems that when a(a+c) is written like that, it's treated as one sum or group of terms to be calculated as a single stage.
Whereas ax(b+c), a*(b+c) or a.(b+c) are all regarded as being separate stages.

About the only thing I can be sure of is - my brain hurts - and there are some very smart chaps here!

[hexniks]

Why do people keep saying multiplication and division are equally important operands - surely they're not?
Multiplication would work anywhere, as would addition, but division is a specific ordered term, as is a minus.
By that I mean the first two can be in either order but the latter two have a specific order.
It's been about 40 years () since I did this in school, but have a fuzzy idea multiplication was before division. IRL, whenever I've had something like that, I've written it to avoid confusion and I'm thinking I want another 40 years before I see them again [surrender]

As has been said, for most people it isn't relevant in our working lives but for others, like theoretical scientists, I expect they may have a considererable number of terms to figure out and it's very important that they are correctly calculated.

Seems that when a(a+c) is written like that, it's treated as one sum or group of terms to be calculated as a single stage.
Whereas ax(b+c), a*(b+c) or a.(b+c) are all regarded as being separate stages.

About the only thing I can be sure of is - my brain hurts - and there are some very smart chaps here!

a(a+c) and a*(a+c) are exactly the same thing, just a different notation.

[Ingeborga]

a(a+c) and a*(a+c) are exactly the same thing, just a different notation.

So I would also think, but some calculators seem to treat them differently, go figure

[Goodwin]

Why do people keep saying multiplication and division are equally important operands - surely they're not?
Multiplication would work anywhere, as would addition, but division is a specific ordered term, as is a minus.

Correct, which is why the 'left to right' rule is so important. If one treats division and subtract as the inverse operations of multiplication and addition, it becomes fairly clear as to why BODMAS works as it does.

[EmxATW5m]

Why do people keep saying multiplication and division are equally important operands - surely they're not?

They are, as in, you do them from left to right, you don't do multiplications first and then divisions, or the other way around, you just go left to right

[AsmViktor]

bless my dear aunt sally (brackets,multiplication,division,addition,subtrac tion) still rember it unless its been changed, i know that; i before e execpt after c, has vanished from english as it was totally wrong lol.

[EmxATW5m]

bless my dear aunt sally (brackets,multiplication,division,addition,subtrac tion) still rember it unless its been changed, i know that; i before e execpt after c, has vanished from english as it was totally wrong lol.

well you're missing exponents etc completely from that, and multiplication and division are equal and not multi first division then like the riddle suggests, just like addition & substraction are equals.

[KukkoDrukko]

2 ( 9 + 3 ), 2( 9 + 3 ) - it's irrelevant - at least last time I checked for example order of operations (algebra) there was no mentions whatsoever that multiplication next to parenthesis should somehow be calculated before other multiplications.

Well, to me, having 2(9+3), with the 2 right next to the parenthesis, with no space or multiplication symbol, implies that the 2 is multiplied to whatever is in the parenthesis, rather than the actual equation of 48 / 2 (9+3) which is apparently supposed to be treated as (48 / 2)(9+3). It's just the way I remember being taught this stuff as well, and I can see I'm not the only one. As my friend said, it's incredibly easy for some of us to misread it, as the picture above implies.

But then again, what do I know? I never did any higher maths. The highest I ever did was Algebra II and that was YEARS ago. I remember learning the PEMDAS rule, but I just can't remember 100% actually being taught that MD is equal, as well as AS.

well you're missing exponents etc completely from that, and multiplication and division are equal and not multi first division then like the riddle suggests, just like addition & substraction are equals.

[Goodwin]

Well, to me, having 2(9+3), with the 2 right next to the parenthesis, with no space or multiplication symbol, implies that the 2 is multiplied to whatever is in the parenthesis

That would be the case if (a) there were no operations preceding the 2 or (b) there is a preceding addition/subtraction operation. In other words:

2(9+3) = 2 x (9+3) = 2 x 12 = 24

48+2(9+3) = 48 + 2 x (9+3) = 48 + 24 = 72

48/2(9+3) = 48 ÷ 2 x (9+3) = 24 x 12 = 288

[9mm_fan]

I'm actually a bit shocked at the lack of grasp on such simple math equations by most members here.