<p>Google does not give the answer to that question at all. If you type in the problem to the google calculator, google immediately translates it into an unambiguous form as (48/2) * (9+3). Sorry, but that’s only the same thing depending on the way you read the question. The orginial question is ambiguous and no valid conclusion can be drawn from an ambiguous statement. It doesn’t matter what “precedence” is or what some software program tells you. Precedence has little to do with the actual truth of something and a programming code doesn’t mean anything in relation to objective truth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And why would anyone not read it that way? Interpreting that as 48/(2*(9+3)) is incorrect since that is not what’s written.</p>
<p>THE SOLUTION IS 288. Although M is before D in PEMDAS, the two are interchangeable and whichever appears first should be executed first. It’s the same for Addition & Subtraction.</p>
<p>Ken,</p>
<p>It is also not written as (48/2) * (9+3), you are just perceiving it that way.</p>
<p>I’ll repeat myself again: The statement is ambiguous and ambiguous statements are invalid.</p>
<p>Give me a mathematical proof that shows that the problem MUST be interpreted in a certain way.</p>
<p>Like I said people are basing their solutions on precedence and software programs, which has nothing to do with truth value.</p>
<p>It’s amazing that anyone, engineering majors nonetheless, will actually defend 2 as being a valid answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aren’t you in some type of computer industry? What would a computer say…</p>
<p>No it’s not both 2 or 288. What is wrong with you guys – engineers nevertheless? It’s common practice (at least it has been throughout my high school career) that there is a set of parenthesis ALWAYS around the denominator. In this case, said set is not there, so it is:</p>
<p>48/2 = 24 * (9+3) = 288</p>
<p>gstein, I am NOT defending 2 being a valid answer. The entire point of my argument is that there is NO valid answer at all because, if translated as an argument, the statement commits the fallacy of ambiguity and has no deductive form that can be tested for soundness.</p>
<p>My point is that those saying 288 is an absoulte right answer are wrong, not because 2 is right, but because saying that 288 is the right answer implies that a singular true statement can be derived from the given problem, and that is not the case. </p>
<p>Of course, that’s all academic talk as I happen to be really into my logic class right now. Practically speaking I would tell someone to rephrase the question before attempting to answer it. Someone brought up the example that if you were a nurse reading someone else’s instructions in that form and mistakenly assumed that the doctor prescribed 288 cc of a medicine and he really meant 2 cc, there would be grave consequences.</p>
<p>Oh no what system of convention should we use! (;</p>
<p>Instead of typing an ambiguous statement here on the internet, please write it out on paper with correct notation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you wrote this in C or C++ or Java code, you would need to put an operand between the ‘2’ and the ‘(’ first because that would cause an error. So in C/C++/Java code, it would HAVE to be typed…</p>
<p>48/2*(9+3)</p>
<p>In this case, the answer would be 288.</p>
<p>To get the answer 2, it would need to be typed in C/C++/Java…</p>
<p>48/(2*(9+3))</p>
<p>Now Matlab and other mathematical software can interpret no operand between the ‘2’ and ‘(’.</p>
<p>As far as programming, it would not be ambiguous because an operand would HAVE to be added which basically make this question moot.</p>
<p>this is a pretty profound math problem guys. i’m emailing a link to this thread to all of the math departments at all of the major universities as im typing this post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>no its much worse. it’s pretty embarrassing that this thread has gotten so long. i don’t think confusion over the 0.999…=1 thing is that embarrassing.</p>
<p>although the disagreement for this ‘issue’ comes from the same source–people getting caught up in how you write down math ideas on a piece of paper and not the math ideas themselves.</p>
<p>I think some of you need to spend a little more time reviewing arithmetic and less time on these forums. Seriously, guys (and gals), this isn’t a grey area. There is a single correct answer given the problem that was presented. There is a correct way to interpret it.</p>
<p>Let’s agree on the the interpretation of the / bar. Without additional parenthesis grouping the 2 and the sum, anyone who follows standard math procedures carefully would assume it means (48/2) *(9+3)</p>
<p>Computers are stupid. They follow instructions.
Using Matlab R2007b. </p>
<p>The only reason why Wolfram Alpha or Google would give us 2 is because they throw exceptions and interpret the input based on what computer thinks is appropriate (based on all the defined rules, common errors …)</p>
<p>Try 0^0 in google. It gives you 1. But we know it’s indeterminate. Google doesn’t know math and the engineers who design the calculator in google didn’t throw enough exceptions.</p>
<p>The way to read this would be multiply by (9+3) at the end.</p>
<p>OK… this is just getting ridiculous. The answer is 288. That is unquestionable.</p>
<p>What truly is a mystery is… Which came first? The first beer… or the first hangover???</p>
<p>They say that a beer cures a hangover. So, did someone invent the first beer to cure the first hangover… or did the first beer produce the first hangover and this then created the vicious cycle of brewing more beer to cure the incurable hangover??? </p>
<p>This has stumped me for some time soooooo… I think I’ll go have a beer and contemplate the great mystery of life :)</p>
<p>At the end of the day, I am going to ask someone at an interview how can they reduce I/O contention on an Oracle database. Whether or not they figure this problem out will mean nothing.</p>
<p>If I don’t fill these positions, they will get snatched.</p>
<p>Not everyone has a job as math-free as you, GT.</p>
<p>GT, I’m confused. Why does it mean nothing?</p>
<p>Because I have seen folks while interviewing others nitpick on minor things. Just like Bonh3ad said, there will be some precedent set for this within the work environment. When evaluating someone, I am not going to base my analysis over something like this.</p>
<p>I would be more worried if the person could not calculate the problem if it was clearly written.</p>
<p>Don’t mind me though, I am kind of ranting to the continued chest-thumping on this site. I know it is ok to be competitive but after awhile it gets to be like “oh brother”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would argue that a “good” engineer would specify the expression in such a way as to eliminate ambiguity.</p>