Iz not possible Spoiler [/troll] There are only 4 different "operations" (brackets aren't really an operation) Brackets Exponentiation Multiplication Addition Each has his inverse operation which is considered equal. Neither takes precedence over the other, but are to be performed from left to right. Also, "Meneer van Dalen wacht op antwoord" dates back to the 19th century and is not valid anymore.
48÷2(9+3) Simplify Brackets - 48÷2(12) Expand Brackets - 48÷24 =2 edit- we learn Bodmas in England edit2- therefore i'm right! 8)
Oh come on, you can't tell me that things like these aren't the same depending on where you are. :? Didn't some of you englishmen had PEMDAS at school? Wouldn't that be in favor of the solution 288? Anyway, my point is that you can't just imply that the (9+3) belongs to the denominator as long as it doesn't have any brackets around 2(9+3) Pim: I demand clarification!
Like I said already, we had Bodmas, or Bidmas Brackets Other/Indices Division Multiplication Addition Subtraction So it's 2! You do the Brackets BEFORE the division!
The discussion is whether you must see 2(12) as 2*(12) or as (2(9+3). That's an argument where even the wisest match professors aren't agreeing about. So no reason for us to try and solve it
It was used as an example to show that when you type certain equation you have to use more parenthesis to have it work. Where are you would write this equation on a piece of paper it would always be easy to read. 48Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â --- (9+3) 2 or 48 ----- 2(9+3) It's fun to psych out your teachers with and waste some hours on a forum. I've seen it blow up to ~500 page threads on some forums 8)
I don't have you tell you that the answer is 42 right?!? Seriously though, the answer here is 288. That is because 48÷2(9+3) is the same as 48÷2*(9+3) = 288 If you want to end up with 2, you have to add another pair of brackets: 48÷(2(9+3)) = 2 It's as simple as that, and no, that is certainly not open for discussion!
Ok I guess that is the right answer if you want to do it your stupid Dutch way, but if you do it the proper way (British), it's 2! :lol:
Well I asked my Maths teacher, he's very smart, studies Maths at university. He told me that is was 288 and that everybody who thinks it's 2, is using the old methods, the current, newest ones will bring you to 288. When I told him about people in the UK saying it's 2, he said that those people were either stupid or old fashioned.
Isn't it strange that it even exist? I mean... multiple ways to calculate this. There should be one outcome, not two. In construction this would lead to dangerous situations if such an event occurred because a Dutch engineering agency calculated stuff for a British construction working company..... Ah... this floor can carry 288 kg/m2 more then enough.... and in Britain it would only be able to carry 2 kg/m2 :roll: See my point?
The method is the same in the Netherlands as in the UK, perm is just an idiot. BODMAS = MVDWOA Perm just doesn't know D=M and should go from left to right and it's not D>M. Also brits don't use the metric system
Yep. I know the way your write the matrix that correspond to a linear application (yeah, maths... ;_ in france is the opposite of the way you write it in the US. Yeah, very handy, good job geniuses >< .
It have nothing to do with old/new methods in Math. It's just 288. I deeply studied mathematics at the University for 3 years already, you can trust me