Trending Content
| +71 | Investment Banking Interns - Learn to Abuse the Office Printer. Here Are 5 Tips to Make Sure You Land The Return Offer This Summer. | 8 | 45m | |
| +66 | Dream Wife | 54 | 5s | |
| +46 | In Light of BofA Events Remember What's Important In Life | 1 | 17h | |
| +40 | Did someone hack WSO on LinkedIn? | 12 | 3d | |
| +30 | BAN Bronzbomba from WSO | 5 | 1d | |
| +26 | Thoughts on Stifel’s Sex Scandal? | 17 | 18h | |
| +22 | What is stressing you out? | 9 | 41m | |
| +22 | Does Jawline Matter in Sell-Side? | 7 | 2d | |
| +20 | Firms with a strong Physical fitness culture | 9 | 3d | |
| +19 | Footy in NYC this summer | 1 | 2d |
Career Resources
(e^(i*pi))/(-0.5)
.
The answer which I got was the following:
y x (i x p i) x (-0.5)
288 but my conversion process formulated from a vector application has it at 3.50 Amidoingitrite? U tell me. Umadbrah?
in.
2
.
To see if you so called "wall street geniuses" have the brain power to solve a simple mathematics equation.
The way you wrote it, 288.
Is this a troll, or was this an interview question? I don't get this post to be honest.
Who the fuck uses the fucking "÷" symbol when writing terms?
ditto that!
I saw this on Bodybuilding.com this morning...
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=133389973
The mods closed it at page 84... a poll showed that 1500 (the slim majority) thought the answer is 2.
What is going on in our schools? I think about the "Jaywalker" segment on Leno, but I dismiss those people as random idiots. But to actually get a majority out of a 3000+ sample size...words fail me.
I mean, yeah, those are bodybuilding forums, but I wouldn't expect anything that bad. Is this how all those ridiculous supplements are sold?
Bodybuiding forum no wonder....actually didn't realize riods affected brain power...
the answer is 288, though for some reason people are initially confused by how it is written and think the 2 is part of the brackets. coincidentally, i guarantee nobody would get it wrong if it was written like this:
48÷2*(9+3)
Silly hoes need to brush up on order of operations.
no one writes divide sign like that, why not do
48/2*12 = 288
or you mean 48/ (2*12) = 2
^Yeah, it's 2.
I hope both of you are joking...
PEMDAS it's 2
ummm.... parentheses exponents multiplication division addition subtraction... with this how did you get 2?
also read my avatar icon.... It talks about your math skills
Multiplication and division are same order of precedence
LOL AT ALL THE PEOPLE SAYING 288. how the fuck do yo not know simeple order of operations. its clearly 2...
Please change your name. You are retarded.
Everyone who is a dumbass just got monkey shit thrown at them.
lol - owned.
Please excuse my dear aunt sally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
[quote=BeatStreet]Please excuse my dear aunt sally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations[/quote]
talk about a throw back haha
Order of operations is easy to forget I suppose
I cant believe some of you think that is 288....
48÷2(12) which can be rewritten as 48÷2*12
Since ÷ and * are the same in order of operations, you go from left to right so 48÷212 = 2412 = 288.
hahahahahah its 288....
PEMDAS isnt set in stone; multiplication doesn't always come before division, it depends on the order found in the problem
It is 2.
The way it is written is confusing, if it were written appropriately it would look like this:
48 --------- = 2 2(9+3)
Lmao you can't just change the way its written because you don't agree with it.
...but thats not the way it was written.
Some of you guys might actually be retarded you realize that 2 *12 is a quantity you cant divide the two then multiply by 12.
For all of you arguing 2 instead of 288 because of PEMDAS, keep in mind that PEMDAS implies that you perform the operations WITHIN the parenthesis before anything else. When you have something like 2(12) on the other hand, it is the equivalent of 2*12 and does not take priority over divisions or other multiplications.
When you have 212 that is a quantity you divide that entire thing into 48. Look 48/24 is the same thing as 48/122
48/24 = 48/(122) but NOT (48/12)2.
black financier you might want to look at your own icon
You think the answer is 2 you are an idiot and your math is turrible. 288. learn basic 3rd grade math. well maybe 4th.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48÷2(9%2B3)&t=macw01
I think the people who are writing 2 are just kidding around. I don't think anybody here really believes its 2.
seriously?
48÷2(9+3) is an equivalent formulation to 48÷2x...
HINT: the answer is not 24x
shit like this makes me wish I were a trader...
You're not a trader for a reason.
48/2(9+3) not 48/(2(9+3))
From a children's math website: http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol7/order_operations.html
Rule 1: First perform any calculations INSIDE parentheses. Rule 2: Next perform all multiplications and divisions, working from left to right. Rule 3: Lastly, perform all additions and subtractions, working from left to right.
Solidarity, you bring up a good point, but I'm sticking to my guns here. While 48÷2x is not 24x, 48÷2(x) is a little more ambiguous since you could argue that it is the equivalent of 48÷2*x.
The answer is 288. The order of operation reads right to left for MD and AS - one does not have priority over the other.
I love the controversy this is igniting. Great post OP.
^ Haha, yeah seriously...
This really shouldn't need to be typed out and explained, but it seems some people here need to be schooled.
PEMDAS or BEDMAS where division and multiplication share the same order (whichever comes first) and similarly addition and subtraction share the same order (last) pending on whichever comes first in the equation.
48÷2(9+3)
Step 1: (9+3) = 12 (bracket) Step 2: 48÷2 = 24 Division comes before multiplication because it's shown earlier in the equation Step 3: 24(12) = 288
Seriously, why the hell are we discussing grade school math here?
Order of operations. "Pemdas" my nukka.
And I'm not even back office, im acct - im not even IN the office........ throwback question to alg 2 & trig soph year of hs.
Its 288. Order of ops. Honestly this is just poorly written.
Confusion breeds contempt. Evidenced by this thread.
lmfao. holy shit. can we all just agree that the question is written idiotically? no one would ever write it that way in the first place.
/end thread, it's 288 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=48%C3%B72%289%2B3%29
Good trolling though!
Agree with the people saying this is written ambiguously. If you are going to put the divide symbol between the 48 and the 2 you should toput the multiplcation symbol between the 2 and the (
Just so those of you who think its 2 don't feel dumb its being argued all over the internet right now.... comical.
How sad...
Anyway, those still in denial and not willing to accept the rules of order of ops, throw '=48/2(9+3)' in excel
sure, order of ops but as written implies 48÷(2x) rather than 48÷2*x
either way it's not a big deal
I originally sided with 288, but Solidarity brings up a very good argument for 2. So I change my answer to this: there is no answer. Some genius somewhere came up with this seemingly simple math problem that is fundamentally flawed in that it has ambiguous syntax. Probably laughing his ass off about how a bunch of dolts are arguing over something with no real answer
Go ahead and plug it into excel. It'll show you this error:
Microsoft Office Excel found an error in the formula you entered. Do you want to accept the correction proposed below?
=48/2*(9+3)
Like I said, the question was very poorly written. It has nothing to do with order of operations here. You can interpret the question in both ways.
288.
easy to get confused, but think of it this way 48/2(9+3) => 48/2*12
if you don't believe it type it on a scientific calculator and see.
MBP - that's my point though. Yes the equation is poorly written, but it's an accepted fact that when you write something like y(z) it means y x z. And excel while not programmed to interpret enclosed numbers as a factor as whateverittakes said above, it recognizes that y(z) is generally interpreted as y x z and it makes the fix after giving you the error message.
The original equation 48÷2(9+3) is 48÷2(9+3) NOT 48÷(2(9+3)). The 2(9+3) is just a lazier version of 2(9+3).
48 / 2x = a. 24/x b. 24x
Discuss
It's not written ambiguously. 48/212= (48/2)12, and not 48/(2*12) plug it into freaking excel without parentheses and see what you get
Ok, my entire point is that if there is no consistency in the way a question is formulated, regardless of how simple it is, there is room for interpretation. I can tell you that based on the way the question is written, if I interpret it to mean 48/2x, where x = 9+3, then I'm not wrong. If I interpret it to mean 48/2*x, then I'm still not wrong. I can even interpret y(z) to be some completely strange group action if I want, or that we are in a finite field of order 277, in which case the answer most certainly is not 288.
If you want common sense to apply to the solution, you need to write the question with a bit of common sense. Otherwise, you need to spell out all of your assumptions in the question.
Those arguing 288 might find this interesting
Source: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57021.htmlI've learned something valuable from this thread. You all are a bunch of cunts with very little social skills.
This question was poorly written and can easily confuse. It isn't like someone cannot add 2+2. Calling people retards or fucking morons will get you no where, regardless of how correct you are.
Thank you. My point entirely.
I think this thread just proved a lot of bankers are just as stupid as the rest of the population.
I would argue that they're dumber than everyone else. Based on this intellectual performance.
I'm confused as to how you find this poorly written, (9+3) does not equal /12/ or 12, but (12), as in a value to be multiplied. Making it 48 / 2 (12), then 24 (12), then 288.
Either way, I agree with ANT. Can't believe you guys are calling each other retards over a stupid math problem. Hah.
Please read my earlier post. I explain the answer to your question.
288
I have proof the answer is 288... type it into an equation in excel... amirite?
I don't think there is any question that this is the greatest thread in WSO history.
Order of operations: Rule 1: First perform any calculations inside parentheses. Rule 2: Next perform all multiplications and divisions, working from left to right. Rule 3: Lastly, perform all additions and subtractions, working from left to right.
Therefore, 1. (9+3) = 12 2. 48÷2 = 24, 24(12) = 288 3. None left
Answer is 288, based on the way the OP wrote the equation. End of story.
Wrong. It is not the end of story. In elementary arithmetic (the one that contains the ÷ sign) the operation x(y) is not defined. You can't just assume it means x(y). If you assume that x(y) = x(y), then the answer is 288. If you assume x(y) = (x*y), then the answer is 2. Since the operation to begin with is not properly define, the problem is not well formed. So, like I said, the answer depends on your assumptions. If you assume x(y) = x^y, the answer is something entirely different. You can even assume that there are no numbers greater than 53 (i.e. the field Z_53).
Once again, you assumed the question was asking 48/2*(9+3). But that is not what was written.
EDIT: yeah, I get what you mean now but I don't think we're trying to distribute the 12 here... My 1/48th Chinese ancestry says so lol.
I really don't mean this in the dick way I know it's going to come off (no pun intended).
Have you ever taken a serious course in mathematics? Not the bullshit you learn in high school or a basic calculus course in freshman year, but a rigorous course in algebra where you study groups, fields and other algebraic structures? If you had, you really wouldn't have made the statement about "overanalyzing what x(y) could be." Understanding what x(y) means is the entire source of the confusion in the question. And it's not defined in elementary arithmetic. It doesn't mean multiplication. PEMDAS/BEDMAS doesn't even apply until you define what x(y) means. Normally you can infer it from the question, but in this case you can't.
MBP, you are SPOT ON. If I had an SB to give you would get one. The definition of x(y) is absolutely the source of the ambiguity and the reason why this isn't as simple as it looks.
According to my calculator
But I tried it on my flatmates calculator and got different results lol
My point exactly. The question is completely ambiguous.
When CALCULATORS argue over the right answer, you know the question is flawed, LOL.
for those who throw a shit at someone for saying 2.... please have a sense of humor
@ MBP
Haha. Yeah, I get what you mean. I edited my answer before I read your above post.
Haha, just saw it now. This really was the best thread in a long time.
Jesus MBP you got me trying to work this out on pen and paper now... lol.
lol, fucking WSO. I get 3 monkey shits for being right the entire time. wow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket_(mathematics)
x(y) is a verrrrrrry well known abbreviation for x*(y). Look at any math book expanding a product, such as x!, and it is always represented as x(x-1)(x-2)...
The multiplication is obvious.
Also that calculator computes different values because of an error in the parser implementation.
I'm sorry, but where in that article does it say that x(y) is the same as x*(y)? I never denied that it is commonly understood that way. But it is also commonly understood in many other ways.
It's also pretty commonly understood that xy = yx, but in general it is completely wrong (look up non-abelian groups). And giving me one example of x! being expressed as x(x-1)...1 doesn't prove anything.
The multiplication, most certainly, is not obvious. And if you want to go with the conventional way of solving it, the answer is still 2.
Solving this equation the same way would give an answer of 2. This equation could easily be argued both ways. My first answer when I first saw it was 288, but after thinking about it, I'm sitting on the fence. I also have one calculator showing me 2 and one showing 288. Not sure which one to use for my finals lol
hysterical.
It's clearly 3...
awesome. two TI's, two answers.
Wow this is embarrassing for the investment banking community. It's clearly 288. Chromey calculator and my Casio calculator both say 288, too.
The accepted mathematical convention is that when two unknown numbers are juxtaposed, they are multiplied, and that multiplication takes precedence over division. Thus, in this case we multiply 2*12 before we divide, so we get 2.
If written in Excel exactly as typed above the answer is 288. My math guys here also said it is 288. (9+3) first then left to right to solve.
Who are your 'math' guys? Also, you can't type it exactly as it's shown in the OP in excel.
If you type it into Excel it autocorrects the equation to 48/2*(9+3). My "math" guys as in analysts. They did the equation then typed into excel to see what it said. Both arrived at 288.
excel says it's 288, therefore it's 288.
Wrong. Excel doesn't say it's 288. Excel doesn't answer it until it guesses what you actually mean. It's only after you clarify what you mean to Excel that it answers 288. If the clarity had been provided in the OP from the very beginning, there wouldn't have been this outrageous debate over arithmetic.
I skipped all the discussion: the question is poorly written and requires clarification.
Is they stupid....Engrish much?
……..…../´¯/)……….. (\¯
\ …………/….//……….. …\\….\ ………../….//………… ….\\….\ …../´¯/…./´¯\………../¯\….\¯`\ .././…/…./…./.|……| .\….\….\…... (.(….(….(…./.)..)..(..(. \….)….)….).) .\…………….\/…/….. ..\/……………./ ..\…………….. /……..\……………..…/ ….\…………..(………. ..)……………./288 = bankers 2 = back office
looks like we have the back office team in this thread lined up nice and neat
All you're proving with this statement is that bankers are more ignorant about mathematics, not that there's anything wrong with that. Also, I'm not in the "back office"
youre in big 4, your entire industry is considered back office.
U MAD?
I make more money than you, U Jelly?
YA 60K IN TORONTO MAD JELLY BRO, U TOTALLY PWNING MY MEGAFUND 300K.
Does anyone else think it's 7? I keep getting 7.
wat
and regarding the calculators, the TI 86 > 85 > casio since everyone likes doing the "my cock > GS > your cock" thing. someone needs to try on an 89
What I agree with.
Distributive property of multiplication. Early Algebra.
The distributive property of multiplication CLEARLY states that the 2(9+3) is an entire term and CANNOT be broken up. 2(9+3) follows the distributive property which can be rewritten as (29+23). Let me repeat the 2 outside of the parenthesis follows the distributive property of multiplication and must be factored and simplified before performing any other operations on it.
So this can be rewritten as: 48 / (29 + 23)
Which leaves us with
48 / 24 = 2
Answer = 2.
Lastly for those using Google or any other online calculator. These do not understand many theorems or properties so you must explicitly explain what you mean. There is a difference between 48 / 2 (9+3) and 48 / 2(9+3). The first notation reads 48 / 2 * 1(9+3) while the second reads 48 / (29+2*3). Be very careful with your signs.
lol distributive property your dumb ass. how can you only distribute only part of the coefficient?
or do you seriously believe 48/2*(a+b) is not the same as 48/2(a+b) ???????
This is absurd. 48/2(9+3) can be rewritten as (48)/(2)(12) - I don't think anyone will argue that I can put ()s around numbers. Which can be re-written as (x)/(y)(z). Note (y)(z)=(y)(z) So (x)/(y)(z)=288. This is not ambiguous at all. I would also say that TECHNICALLY, 48/2x = 24x, though it would typically be interpreted differently.
And seriously, bringing group theory into this is ridiculous.
Totally and completely wrong. And I was not bringing in group theory to prove anything. It was just illustrative of how you can interpret the problem differently.
Also, 48/2x is24/x. Not 24x.
is princeton a target?
no, it's in New Jersey, so it can't possibly be a reputable school
According to this Math Explanation , it's 288 as paranthesis are exactly the same as multiplication which is on the same level as division and should therefore be solved left to right
however according to this Math Explanation, it's 2 as paranthesis does outrank division and therefore should be solved first.
There does not seem to be a generally accepted way of resolving the conflict which explains why even the best scientific calculators are giving different solutions to the problem
Let's just agree that the question is too ambiguous and solid arguments can be found for both camps.
Ding ding ding.
Ambiguity sucks and there's usually a reason the other guy thinks the way he does.
the calculator is only as smart as its operator if you put a problem in the calculator with -(1) and then you did another problem with (-1) you'd get two different answers.....
The answer is obviously 48/2(9+3), you can't expect an answer unless there is an = sign to start the equation....
48/2(9+3) = 48/2 * 12 = 24 * 12 = 288
48/(2(9+3)) = 48/(2*12) = 48/24 = 2
/end
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=48%C3%B72(9%…
Python, C++, C#, C, Wolfram Alpha, Google, MATLAB all say 288.
/end story.
BEMDAS (Brackets, Exponents, Multiply, Divide, Add, Subtract) =48/2(9+3) =48/2(12) =48/24 =2
Did he died?
48÷2(9+3) = 48 ÷ 2 * (9+3) = 48 ÷ 2 * (12) = 24 * 12 = 288
This is clearly a test to see who goes to a target like Michigan
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=133417023
For the record I sent this to a list at my engineering school (top 5 in some disciplines, top 10 overall) to a list of engineers from biomed, chemE, aerospace, EE, compE, IE, mechE(phd), math/statistics, and even computer science and they were split between 2 and 288 also. At first I thought it was pretty straight forward its 288. But now I'm changing my mind that maybe it is written ambigiously.
OMFG no wonder no one knows how CDOs MBS ect ect are calculated. We cant even agree on a simple math problem that is obviously 288. It would be 2 if it was written like this 48/(2(9=3)). Since there isnt a 2nd set of brackets to quantify the the 2 times 12 step. Since it is written in a line item way you can rule out a fractional equation since its not written as a fraction.
I understand credit derivatives and their pricing very well. And I assure you that both 288, and 2 are valid given the ambiguity in the way the question is written. It's poorly written. That's all there is to it. Can we please just all move on now?
I was refering to people outside of banking, I should have specified that. My bad guys.
A bunch of [non-target wannabe] bankers arguing with a MFE student about arithmetic.... Only on WSO.
MBP, you deserved those SBs.
[quote=Barcadia]http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=133417023[/quote]
LOL, these guys are still at it.
This question is absolutely ambiguous. However, you can't say that both answers are correct. Both answers are actually incorrect and this question does not have an answer.
Answering EITHER 2 or 288 would imply turning 48÷2(9+3) into either 48÷2(x) where x = 9+3, 48÷2*(9+3), or some other "equivalent expression." But you cannot do this. NONE of these other expressions are equivalent expressions, and there are no set-in-stone rules for how to apply the implied multiplication in the first question.
We can, however, based purely on mathematical tradition and such, debate about whether, if such a rule were created, the implied multiplication would be interpreted as 2(x) or 2*(9+3)
I personally think it makes more sense to give 2(9+3) prioirity over the 48÷2. I'm not saying that it's the correct way, but I'm saying that for the future, this should be made the correct way of interpreting the problem.
Sorry guys you are all incorrect. The answer is 42.
48/2(9+3) = 288 with no ambiguity. The adjacency convention is for multiplication. It's not "inconsistent" to use adjacency to represent multiplication because this is never done for division...division is always specified by an actual symbol.
Also, I never said that (a+b)(c+d) = a+bc+d. I said that it is the convention to omit the multiplication symbol * where parenthesis makes it unnecessary. So (a+b)(c+d) = (a+b)(c+d) as normal. Similarly, 10/(2+3)(1+1) = 10/(2+3)(1+1) = 10/52 = 22 = 4.
And for those of you bringing up the distributive property of multiplication...that doesn't change the order of operations at all.
First of all, division is just an artificial simplification as an illustrative tool to teach kids. There's no real definition of division in rigorous mathematics. There is only addition and multiplication. Subtraction is just addition of an additive inverse, and division is just multiplication of a multiplicative inverse (look up algebraic field for further clarification of how the number systems you are familiar with are constructed rigorously). That is why there are no short hand conventions for "division". So if the question had been written in conventional notation, there would be no confusion to begin with. This is the exact reason why mathematics is formed on a rigorous foundation. But of course, the material has to be bastardized when it is taught to kids, and then they have a hard time relearning it properly.
You missed my entire earlier point btw. I never said you were saying (a+b)(c+d) = a+bc+d. It was just an illustration.
The point that people miss about PEMDAS is that it's really P E M/D A/S
multiplication and division happen at the same time (from left to right) as do addition and subtraction.
this means M and D are interchangeable so having MD is the same as DM
In your example the first is correct not because division always come before multiplication but because the division in the problem is first.
This is correct. If you are left with a multiplication part and division part, you go from left to right. One does NOT supersede the other. Same with addition and subtraction.
48 / 2(9+3) = 48 / 2 * 12 = 24 * 12 = 288
Confusion breeds contempt...couldn't have put it any better.
Boom goes the dynamite.
http://www.mathsisfun.com/operation-order-pemdas.html
My question is, how can you expect someone to find the answer when the basis of the problem is described in a non quanitive fashion such as, (a+b)(c+d) I mean honestly it would be much easier just to use number and give a damn answer.
Ok, this has gotten out of hand. These are the two interpretations. Stop posting dumbass links to how pemdas works. Everyone knows that. That's not what's under dispute.
48 / 2(9+3) = 2 48/2 (9+3) = 288
MBP but wouldn't you say for it to be read the first way you need another set of parenthesis? or would you say that doesn't matter?
That would really spell it out and take away the ambiguity. For sure. But not necessarily. See, my entire point from the start has been that no one would write the problem like this. In rigorous notation, it would be written in one of these two ways:
48(2^(-1))(9+3) = 288 or 48((2(9+3))^-1) = 2
There would be no division. Just multiplication and addition.
*Unnecessary overuse of brackets because can't type in mathematical notation here.
But since the parenthesis aren't there aren't you forced to do it in a way where the answer comes out to 288?
So thus far, we've used various casio and TI calculators to no avail. And then we consulted engineers, math prof's, computer science experts, blah blah blah... who also yielded similar ambiguity.
Yet no one, up until this point, sought the answer from the golden brushed-aluminum god that is the HP12C.
(Leveraged Sellout excerpt: "Excel Mobile, it speaks a pure, unambiguous language: Reverse Polish, a postfix notation that eliminates non-commutative issues.")
48 enter 2 [ / ] enter 9 enter 3 [ + ] [ * ] = 288
"1/10th the functionality, 10x the badass."
This one goes to 11...
It's 288...lol omg i can't believe this goes to 4 pages...
omg, 4 pages? end this now!! http://lmgtfy.com/?q=48%C3%B72(9%2B3) now you have to argue to google.
288 = 48÷2(9+3)
Just order of operations
Parathese/Brackets first (9+3=12), then (48/2=24, since you go from left to right), then (24*12=288).
I don't get the point of this post....
it's official... there's literally NOTHING more that can be said about this thread. this has to be the fiftieth time someone has said this exact thing. can we close this now please???
Seconded... or probably the 10th person to agree. The reason why this hasn't ended even with me, you, and everyone writing out why it's 288... is because then the "2" camp will debate that parentheses =/= the same as multiplication and making their justifications for it or whatever else... and so on back and forth. No matter what else can be said, neither side will concede.
The middle ground can only be that this question can be better written so that there is no question for misinterpretation. Besides that, or a mod closing the thread, only way one group or the other would shut up is if someone like Stephen Hawking makes a public announcement to shut everyone up once and for all.
Just have to add in, I can't believe I spend my time answering it/I can't believe this is four pages long.
ibtl
the answer is 2. idk the point of this???
Just read this whole post and want my ten minutes back
TWO. It's an Arabic numeral system. There is no right to left fool!
look at what I caused...
There is NOTHING wrong with the way this question was phrased. This would've made a nice SAT or GMAT problem haha. Even I got it wrong on the first try (im an engineer) and I thought it was 2....then i looked back and was like waiiiit a second.
guys if you got it wrong the first time and thought it was 2 -- you just made a careless mistake. chillsies. HOWEVER if you persistently keep persisting that the answer is indeed 2, then you really are coming off as a dumbass. Pick up your egos and realize that even you who went to an ivy league school and now makes six figures would make a careless mistake and shut the fuck up ;)
so stop it. the answer is NOT 2. :)
OH you're an engineer???? Holy shit, then you MUST be the ultimate authority because everyone knows that engineers have the deepest understanding of mathematics (granted this is extremely simple shit, but there's a subtlety most people here seem to be missing). Dude reality check, engineers are complete dumbasses at math because they learn it completely wrong their entire academic lives. And the reason is that they never need to understand it properly, just use it.
Nobody was insisting that the answer is 2. The discussion was around whether the question is poorly written or not, and it absolutely is. I've explained it at length in my earlier posts and refuse to do it again.
Some people were insisting that the answer is 2.... haha
This is my favorite post in wallstreetoasis history. Seriously who the fuck cares what the answer is its like arguing if charlie sheen is a coke fiend or crack addict.
MBP man just drop it - you think it's 2, and you've got like 50 posts on the defensive trying to prove it's 2, and us '288ers' are not gonna change our minds, and it seems whatever we say won't change yours or others either.
I'm more than willing to drop it. I had dropped it on at least 3 occasions. And for the last time, I don't think it's 2. I think there's more than one way to interpret the question, and all interpretations are valid because the question is poorly written. It's the so-called '288ers' who are not dropping it because they keep saying everyone who thinks otherwise is stupid.
Anyway - my last post on this thread. It was fun debating.
BIG4PWNED
Congrats guys, there are now posts on other forums about this thread and how ibankers can't do simple math.
Nice! Links?
To be fair, I don't think I've done a single calculation in my head in over two years because I throw everything right into excel.
I'm the one that started this question (not here, just in general). My 6th grade son came home with this problem on Wednesday and I posted it on FB. Within hours it was all over the internet.
The issue is that the expression is poorly written and ambiguous. The answer depends on how you interpret implicit multiplication. Would you view 48÷2x as (48÷2)x or 48÷(2x)? Most people (and about half of the calculators) give implicit multiplication a higher priority than implicit multiplication and will come up with 2 as the answer. But it seems that 288 is just as acceptable depending on what rules you have learned and apply.
Anyway, in order for him to pass the standardized testing he has to deal with it as is and he will learn better notation as he moves up.
It is absolutely mind boggling that this seemingly simple expression has gained world wide attention. It inspired me to put together this short video.
[quote=alcarl]I'm the one that started this question (not here, just in general). My 6th grade son came home with this problem on Wednesday and I posted it on FB. Within hours it was all over the internet.
The issue is that the expression is poorly written and ambiguous. The answer depends on how you interpret implicit multiplication. Would you view 48÷2x as (48÷2)x or 48÷(2x)? Most people (and about half of the calculators) give implicit multiplication a higher priority than implicit multiplication and will come up with 2 as the answer. But it seems that 288 is just as acceptable depending on what rules you have learned and apply.
Anyway, in order for him to pass the standardized testing he has to deal with it as is and he will learn better notation as he moves up.
It is absolutely mind boggling that this seemingly simple expression has gained world wide attention. It inspired me to put together this short video.
]
answer is 288 there is no arguing
Nisi odio natus nulla aliquam et qui. Ea in id deleniti sint. Ad maiores unde rem consequatur recusandae. Odit laboriosam fugiat culpa sint sint.
Ut eligendi modi a odio aspernatur repudiandae neque. Nihil similique suscipit rem doloremque consequatur. Eum aut nihil voluptas omnis. Quaerat esse veritatis corrupti beatae nesciunt exercitationem.
Libero enim in odio recusandae. Molestiae amet mollitia quaerat sunt. Ut cumque perferendis architecto animi sit modi itaque.
Sapiente possimus ea tempora atque. Nesciunt dolorem non rerum odit. Deserunt unde omnis repellendus vero quibusdam sint ipsum reiciendis. Vitae temporibus et ex maiores praesentium possimus unde explicabo. Iusto quod magnam quia ipsum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Unde quia quod nisi odio iure doloribus architecto. Nulla et et laudantium non hic et. Vitae repudiandae autem perferendis expedita ut veniam. Voluptates rem molestias recusandae laudantium error. Et est laudantium quo. Natus et ad nisi ad quo. Qui ut voluptas nesciunt quo ea omnis sed voluptas. Est neque quasi eius velit doloremque.
Modi est sed est qui veritatis. Odit aliquid numquam adipisci maxime consectetur eum. Quisquam earum laudantium eveniet dolores et ipsa odio. Recusandae et perferendis sint explicabo labore ut aperiam. Amet delectus ad ut fugit tempore enim illum non. Ut voluptatem maiores debitis officia illum.
Consequuntur quia impedit aliquid expedita possimus sequi. Tempora rerum voluptatem rem maiores quae. Numquam vel voluptatem modi. Reprehenderit beatae velit sit nobis qui. Sed omnis ipsa vero. Vel placeat mollitia odio magnam esse et.
Ut eius ea optio voluptatem. Laboriosam maxime expedita ratione iste eligendi unde eveniet suscipit. Sed autem quo error voluptate. Repellendus quia alias corporis voluptatum cumque. Nihil nulla aperiam et.
Vel tenetur voluptatem pariatur laboriosam tempore. Voluptatem sed rerum enim sapiente vero velit. Odit molestiae dolorem aspernatur totam fuga quis. Nostrum eveniet eos natus quia expedita ea non alias. Aliquid iusto ex earum vitae facere et. Eligendi sed molestiae neque aut et autem doloribus.
Ipsum cumque et ducimus ut. Nisi voluptatem quas aut provident commodi voluptatem. Est praesentium ipsum perferendis ipsum numquam. Soluta est iusto incidunt corrupti qui atque reiciendis totam.
Dolores dignissimos quia minima cupiditate. Veniam sed totam sit nihil ut perferendis alias ut. Voluptatibus voluptas rem asperiores sapiente. Hic sed natus consectetur nam. Facilis saepe ut temporibus deleniti debitis omnis asperiores voluptatem. Facilis molestiae omnis laudantium. Dolorem dolor sint voluptas quia autem et dolores.
Laudantium aperiam asperiores praesentium quaerat consequuntur itaque. Voluptatum officia illum et omnis minima. Quos quam neque amet. Reiciendis dolor vel officia nam voluptatibus et. Aut modi voluptatem ducimus adipisci voluptatem repellendus qui. Cumque temporibus quia sint autem. Consequatur dolores et excepturi laudantium dicta.
Quis quia molestiae voluptatem non autem rerum quae. Voluptatem et ad dolores et in sunt ut. Voluptatem maiores nostrum sapiente et a cumque deleniti quo. Et tempore iste blanditiis necessitatibus autem est. Nesciunt distinctio deleniti non vitae odit nihil. Distinctio et vel minus itaque.
Saepe voluptatem aspernatur aut iusto. Impedit sed saepe minus eum et. Aut assumenda enim in voluptas. Id ut odio velit ad.
Blanditiis ut commodi repellat unde ipsa aliquam. Quia ab vel sunt ut vero sed magnam non. Odit et corporis eius nihil enim ea. Sed vero commodi vitae error neque et.
Fugiat neque velit vitae ad fugiat. Omnis laudantium cum pariatur possimus itaque perferendis et aliquam. Ut possimus facere architecto omnis nisi.
Velit corporis delectus sunt numquam beatae commodi molestiae. Nihil sunt rerum reprehenderit occaecati et id. Et et necessitatibus quod et similique nihil consequatur.
Consequuntur laboriosam pariatur laboriosam qui quia sit. Sequi itaque et dolorem hic. Consequatur a laboriosam aut occaecati harum. Est esse sapiente minima debitis.
Necessitatibus dolor accusantium soluta dolor recusandae inventore debitis dolor. Aliquid enim inventore in qui provident nihil similique numquam.
Autem dolor facere dolores neque amet ut dolorum. Qui sint laboriosam praesentium fugit cum quam. Dolore voluptatem et sit id. Molestiae et nemo corrupti magni culpa assumenda magni.
Fugiat aut perspiciatis nam ducimus delectus hic consequatur. Qui ut libero tempora ut consequatur. Id blanditiis autem animi. Illum ad saepe facere non quia.
Consequatur et rerum qui illo neque. Quod assumenda mollitia et maiores. Sequi veritatis autem natus rem dolorum iure. Similique doloribus expedita et magnam deleniti dolorum. Iste dolorem non non eligendi deleniti laboriosam. Tempore at nisi est.
Et quos quidem expedita est. Accusamus eum laudantium nam. Minus dignissimos dolores et est voluptates. Et sint voluptatum cum iure enim inventore in. Modi a dignissimos minima quia atque culpa.
Excepturi consequatur iste inventore ratione praesentium tempore et. Necessitatibus tempore temporibus animi ea repudiandae rerum eius. Mollitia voluptatibus harum velit ipsam nemo natus. Neque facere voluptas quaerat sint amet debitis dicta.
Consequuntur sit repellat ut voluptatem doloremque eveniet. Repudiandae velit rerum nulla quia quis earum.
Id error dicta animi quia aut non magni. Laborum debitis et dolor itaque.
Dolor enim et et corporis dolore facilis sequi expedita. Ex ratione aut vero non est. Qui quasi dolores occaecati aliquam recusandae odit et. A voluptatem veritatis enim voluptatem.
Autem deleniti qui ut molestiae dolores. Porro ut ipsa ex eos officiis voluptas omnis. Sit aliquam et et magni inventore earum.
Non eos aut odio voluptatem. Debitis minus sit odio similique. Nihil aliquam reprehenderit commodi et. Ea aut corporis tempore consequatur.