View Poll Results: 48÷2(9+3) = ????
2
30
54.55%
288
25
45.45%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll
Are we smarter than bodybuilders?
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,026
Likes: 2
From: Dalton, GA
this is off my facebook:
Which we dont in the presented problem lol so no need to distribute! 
You distribute ONLY when there is an X in the parentheses, eg. 2(5+x)=16. you have to distribute 2 to the 5 and x so it will be 10 + 2x=16. to find x do SADMEP, so 16-10=6 so 2x=6 divide both sides by 2 which x=3
Super Moderator and Official Welcome Crew Yeti
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,066
Likes: 6
From: Souf Cackilack
seeing this problem one way or the other is not necessarily a "mistake". i just prefer one method over the other because of the apparent contradictions in application that can arise, as demonstrated.
the fact is, a) the problem is poorly written at best but probably better described as flawed. b) the solution to this problem depends on who (or what) you ask (and how you were trained): strict mathematicians seem fairly evenly divided on the issue, while the vast majority of engineers see distribution as the determining factor. computer programmers are likely to resolve it using order of occurrence, since that's how most programming languages would be designed to handle the problem. (by the way, it is not uncommon to create custom programs to handle the idiosyncrasies of algebraic grammar, of which this is but one demonstration. claiming one solution simply on the basis of "that's what C++ returns" is not a universally valid argument. even more so to say that "that's what google returned.")
this has been fun to watch; the debate on this forum has been WAY lass volatile than others -- amazing how a little string of characters can divide people.
I've been waiting for someone to bring this up, so yes; let's consult Wolfram on this one:
But wait...
...interesting.
And from yet another source:
And I think everyone's seen all the variety of results returned by different calculators. Technology is not making things any clearer here.
Because of the algebraic rule that says if you're dealing with variables you resolve an equation one way, but if there are constants you use another way? No thank you. A lack of consistency is all part of the problem to begin with.
Last, an excerpt from some educational material:
the fact is, a) the problem is poorly written at best but probably better described as flawed. b) the solution to this problem depends on who (or what) you ask (and how you were trained): strict mathematicians seem fairly evenly divided on the issue, while the vast majority of engineers see distribution as the determining factor. computer programmers are likely to resolve it using order of occurrence, since that's how most programming languages would be designed to handle the problem. (by the way, it is not uncommon to create custom programs to handle the idiosyncrasies of algebraic grammar, of which this is but one demonstration. claiming one solution simply on the basis of "that's what C++ returns" is not a universally valid argument. even more so to say that "that's what google returned.")
this has been fun to watch; the debate on this forum has been WAY lass volatile than others -- amazing how a little string of characters can divide people.
But wait...
...interesting.
And from yet another source:
And I think everyone's seen all the variety of results returned by different calculators. Technology is not making things any clearer here.
Last, an excerpt from some educational material: