48÷2(9+3) =

[Jamesman42]

You are saying that, because 2 has the most votes, it must be right.

How is that a legitimate argument?

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

The answer is 288 because of BEDMAS. I hear most call it PEMDAS though. Maybe BEDMAS is the Canadian thing.

[ricky]

The answer is 288 because of BEDMAS. I hear most call it PEMDAS though. Maybe BEDMAS is the Canadian thing.

what does the b stand for?

[Jamesman42]

Yeah, we use the word parentheses and y'all use brackets.

[ricky]

Yeah, we use the word parentheses and y'all use brackets.

ohhhhhh. my bad.

idk to me brackets makes more sense.

[j]

Did the math before entering the thread, also didn't read the thread.

The answer is 288.

/late

-J

[Dimitrius]

the only thing i dont get is when people say multiplication and division are the same thing.

When we divide something by 4, we are actually multiplying that something by (1/4). This may not make sense to you, but it is true.

[ricky]

the only thing i dont get is when people say multiplication and division are the same thing.

When we divide something by 4, we are actually multiplying that something by (1/4). This may not make sense to you, but it is true.

i just learned about this in my useless *math and physics theory* course.

saying "dividing something by 4" and saying "multiplying something by 1/4" are two completely different arguments. I really don't feel like copying and pasting the lecture.

Edit - I MEANT MATH APPLICATIONS COURSE.

[lonestar]

[Jamesman42]

the only thing i dont get is when people say multiplication and division are the same thing.

When we divide something by 4, we are actually multiplying that something by (1/4). This may not make sense to you, but it is true.

i just learned about this in my useless *math and physics theory* course.

saying "dividing something by 4" and saying "multiplying something by 1/4" are two completely different arguments. I really don't feel like copying and pasting the lecture.

Edit - I MEANT MATH APPLICATIONS COURSE.

You're right. Taking 14 math courses makes me wrong and you right.

[ricky]

the only thing i dont get is when people say multiplication and division are the same thing.

When we divide something by 4, we are actually multiplying that something by (1/4). This may not make sense to you, but it is true.

i just learned about this in my useless *math and physics theory* course.

saying "dividing something by 4" and saying "multiplying something by 1/4" are two completely different arguments. I really don't feel like copying and pasting the lecture.

Edit - I MEANT MATH APPLICATIONS COURSE.

You're right. Taking 14 math courses makes me wrong and you right.

i never said you were wrong. never in one of my posts did i say that.

[ricky]

+1

me too. it makes me fight with jamesman who in reality i <3.

[rumborak]

I hate it when people overly rely on operator precedence, especially in programming languages.
Stuff like

int x = ++i * 5 + i;

makes me want to track down the originator of the code and "++" him myself a bit.

rumborak

[lonestar]

 

[ricky]

..and were back to the OP of this thread.

[Implode]

I'm surprised people are still arguing in this thread. 

[Dimitrius]

I'm surprised people are still arguing in this thread.  

Welcome to DTF.

[ricky]

well, two is still winning, so i guess that must be the answer.

and i officially give up.

[XJDenton]

EDIt = AND WIKIPEDIA ISNT A VALID SOURCE *college professor rant*. I shit on eggs is a perfect example.

This however is.

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Precedence.html

[Implode]

I'm surprised people are still arguing in this thread.  

Welcome to DTF.

Maybe I should make a 1 = 0.999... thread.

[Jamesman42]

+1

me too. it makes me fight with jamesman who in reality i <3.

Well, your assertions fly in the face of mathematical logic, so.....ya know. You're roughing me up, son

[Jamesman42]

I'm surprised people are still arguing in this thread.  

Welcome to DTF.

Maybe I should make a 1 = 0.999... thread.

Hehe

It's true though!

[ricky]

+1

me too. it makes me fight with jamesman who in reality i <3.

Well, your assertions fly in the face of mathematical logic, so.....ya know. You're roughing me up, son

sorry, ill apologize in the chat thread tomorrow. you might have to remind me tho, k?

THAT REMINDS ME, ITS BEEN 36 HOURS. my avatar can go back to normal now.

[Implode]

Hehe

It's true though!

DON'T START. Though I agree.

[Jamesman42]

1 = 1
1/9 = 1/9
1/9 = 0.11111...
9*(1/9) = 9*(0.11111...)
1 = .99999...

QED

[rumborak]

RPN shits on this thread. My first calculator in college had RPN, that was pretty badass.

rumborak

[Implode]

1 = 1
1/9 = 1/9
1/9 = 0.11111...
9*(1/9) = 9*(0.11111...)
1 = .99999...

QED

I prefer this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/f/a/6fa510b44742046a167b4b8515162825.png

And I wish I could change my vote to 288. Ah well.

[Jamesman42]

^Nice, using infinite series to show it. I've never seen that version before, thank you

[rumborak]

1 = 1
1/9 = 1/9
1/9 = 0.11111...
9*(1/9) = 9*(0.11111...)
1 = .99999...

QED

The bolded part is kinda the weak part in the argument. You're essentially trying to prove this by relying on a convenient shorthand.

rumborak

[Jamesman42]

What do you mean exactly?

[Implode]

I would kind of agree with rumby. The fact that 1/9 = 0.111... comes from the same logic that 1 = 0.999....

[Jamesman42]

Then what does 1/9 equal in decimal form?

[rumborak]

What do you mean exactly?

I'm saying that the "..." notation isn't really a proper notation for numbers, and it kinda means "reader, I assume you know what I mean, and I'm too lazy to write infinite numbers here". Using this notation for proving something doesn't really work too well.

Then what does 1/9 equal in decimal form?

There is none. There are many numbers that don't have a decimal expansion, including Pi.

1 = 1
1/9 = 1/9
1/9 = 0.11111...
9*(1/9) = 9*(0.11111...)
1 = .99999...

QED

I prefer this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/f/a/6fa510b44742046a167b4b8515162825.png

This one isn't really that great either. It just relies on a different assumption, which is that the limit of x going towards a number is that number. So, in the end you have a tautology, since the limit notation relies on exactly the same thing as the thing you're trying to prove.

To me, it's mostly just a matter of definition that 0.99999... = 1. The argument goes that the difference is infinitely small and thus you could never define a meaningful difference between the two.

rumborak

[Implode]

Then what does 1/9 equal in decimal form?

0.111... but if that's the case you might as well cut out the first two steps in your proof. I dunno. I feel like it's cheating. I'm actually not an expert.

To me, it's mostly just a matter of definition that 0.99999... = 1. The argument goes that the difference is infinitely small and thus you could never define a meaningful difference between the two.

rumborak

I'm sure there are huge math texts that explain it, but I don't know how to respond. You're kind of right, I guess.

[Fiery Winds]

I'm saying that the "..." notation isn't really a proper notation for numbers, and it kinda means "reader, I assume you know what I mean, and I'm too lazy to write infinite numbers here". Using this notation for proving something doesn't really work too well.

It's just a way to represent the bar symbol to indicate a repeating decimal.

There are many numbers that don't have a decimal expansion, including Pi.

The difference is that Pi is an irrational number which cannot be represented as a ratio of two whole numbers.  A repeating decimal is still a decimal.

To me, it's mostly just a matter of definition that 0.99999... = 1. The argument goes that the difference is infinitely small and thus you could never define a meaningful difference between the two.

Some may argue that, but the proof is meant to show that they are in fact equal to each other.