<p>The expression is unambiguous if you follow established precedent.</p>
<p>Inmotion12: That sort of argument can be applied to make everything seem meaningless. It’s like saying that 4 - 6 is not equal to -2 because the minus operator could actually represent something else. Within a reasonable context, some things can and should be accepted as correct.</p>
<p>Actually, at first glance it looks like you’re defining the range of something, e.g., the 4-6 seeds in the playoffs. You could just as easily have written 4 minus 6, 6 less than 4, 4 take away 6, or 4 (-) 6. That’s sort of the whole point of the problem isn’t it? The problems that arise from poor communication?</p>
<p>
I disagree. That’s why context is important. Given that this thread is about arithmetic, there is no reason to believe it’s about range or playoff seeding. </p>
<p>As an example, in construction, it’s common to refer to the volume of a concrete placement in terms of “yards,” even though everybody knows it’s actually cubic yards. Nobody mistakes it for a linear unit. Is it technically correct? No. Is the meaning well understood? Yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good engineers are hard to come by then :P</p>
<p>Using leftward association and the precedence of the operators, assuming the implicit multiplication, the answer should be 288 unless / is rightward associative</p>
<p>You people need to seriously find better things to do with your time than debate how to solve a 4th grade problem!</p>
<ol>
<li>Simple.</li>
</ol>
<p>288
hahahahhahaah learn your basics
B-bracket
O-open
D-division
M-multiplication
A-addition
S-subtraction</p>
<p>48/2(9+3)=288.
P- Parenthesis
E- Exponents
M- Mult D- Division
A- Add S- Subtr</p>
<p>If it was
48/(2(9+3)) then it’d be 2.</p>