48÷2(9+3) - Page 13

FGII-XR6 · 17-04-2011, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NC1183

BOMDAS or BODMAS, either or works, it is "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations, that is causing the problem, as Google and Microsoft Office (Excel) can't calculate it or with it.

Well, that is, unless my multimeter and Megger tester are faulty, which i find hard to believe as they have just come back from calibration, and my voltage drop and fault-loop impedance equations have come back to me with the same results, multiplying by juxtaposition, as what i see on my test equipment, which would be the same for you au3xr6

spot on I think the problem here is those of us who use calculations for real life physical values refuse to accept theoretical calulations that have no valid relationship to physics engineering and the real world systems like BODMAS are the product of academics who would starve if they had to work in the real world

**Full Noise** · 17-04-2011, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

Have any of you stopped and thought "hmm this debate has been going on for quite some time now, with no single agreed upon answer.

I’ve got an answer for this thread. It’s a total load of horse shyte and a complete waste of bandwidth.

Tuddy200 · 17-04-2011, 09:43 PM

Maybe it's just me, but I didn't think the brackets went away just because you added 9 & 3 together? Otherwise, we'd have 48/212?

My answer is: 0.2264150943396226 ;)

Maggot · 17-04-2011, 09:53 PM

Funny, we were taught BIMDAS.. but same thing.. the confusion is only whether the 9+3 is in the nominator or the denominator.. and only happens when a division is written in a single line.

The way it is written.. I still think the answer should be 2.. as it needs to be written with brackets , such as (48/2)(9+3) if it was to mean anything else.