48÷2(9+3) = ?

[grundle]

Texas Instruments TI-85 says:

48÷2(9+3) = 2

But Texas Instruments TI-86 says:

48÷2(9+3) = 288

[paulycy]

[mmichaels1970]

But there IS NO PARENTHESIS

There is also no multiplication operator (*) between the 2 and the 9+3. So what we are looking at is a factor, not a multiplication operation x(y+z) is the same as (xy+xz) where x*(y+z) would fall to order of operations as a multiplication operation.

[fremont_steve]

Just curious - when did Texas relocate to Japan? I’ve met the guys who design the TI calculators...they were in Texas!

As for which is the right answer...I would say it was a poorly written expression thus giving itself to an ambiguous answer.

[mentor2k]

Huh? no operator? The ( ) IS the operator.

[glennaro]

At first I thought 2 was the correct answer but --curiously, I think -- yours is a valid point because since division and multiplication are treated equally in terms of operational hierarchy, the recognized practice (absent parentheses) of solving the problem from left to right yields the 288 result.

Perhaps both are equally valid answers which means the solution is not determinable from the problem statement.

[BoringGuy]

You are correct. I was attempting to show the accociation created by the LACK of an operator between the 2 and the (9+3). Obviously poorly.

Others have explained it much more clearly. Sorry for the confusion.

[Bikkuri]

“Kentucky Fried Toot Chewers”?

[fremont_steve]

The PI just thought he saw the I.... in other words, the I was imaginary.

[mentor2k]

See post 81 from paulycy

[ßuddaßudd]

And these folks make ICs too. . .
j/k

[Sacajaweau]

Or MISS the Chinese Embassy.

[gwilhelm56]

OKOKOKOKOKOKOK

If you are using GOP Budgeting rules the answer is 2
If you are using Democrat Budgeting rules, the answer is 288

[mmichaels1970]

I changed my mind. You are right. Did a little brushing up at themathpage and realized I was wrong.

[GladesGuru]

Welcome to the world of Reverse Polish Notation.

[IYAS9YAS]

I know (at least I think I know). But I didn’t put the parentheses around the 48/2. Google did. Why is that? Try it yourself. Click the link in post 6.

Excel did the same thing in practice. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought multiplication took precedent over division, but in the case of Excel, it took division first, then multiplication. Excel gives 288 - you have to put the * in between the 2 and the (9+3) for Excel to work. I will have to look into it.

[SeaHawkFan]

Anyone who learned math prior to calculators would know the answer can only = 2.

[MarkL]

Which is why people who need accurate answers either use an HP or a slide rule.

Mark

[Hoodat]

[achilles2000]

Please excuse my dear Aunt Sally

[mentor2k]

That’s cool, tricky ain’t it?