i read that before you deleted the Hitler thing lol
does this mean i was right lol im not very happy i feel like i need to start school from the beginning now xD
“The paranthesis do not dissaper and a multiplier magically appears if you add first, and the 2 is bound to the term in the paranthesis, you always do it first.
No left to right, no handstand and right to left, no PEMDAS, or other Voodoo, obey Algebra, it’s the law” -Arexma
Actually, Arexma, even though I really do suck at math, what you wrote still is my intuition. I couldn’t quote the rules of math, but my gut tells me that you’re right with that, because that’s just how it feels in my head. Then again, I’m a little crazy. If I liked Algebra, it was because it reminded me of poetry more than anything else. I know that makes no sense, but there it is.
It’s why I stay away from numbers. I feel my way through things…
Spock would have rhetorically ripped my lungs out…
this is exactly why I agree with the video by vihart, about the fact that this simply a poorly formed expression.
We have people who are sure that 2 is the right answer as well as people who are sure that 288 is the right answer.
I won’t take a stand on which is right and which is wrong.
Arexma’s explanation of 2*(9+3) being different from 2(9+3) sounds very odd to me though. However I wasn’t able to find any proof either way (but I can imagine this is a thing that might be taught differently in different places).
i was taught that it would be 288 we always used pemdas and i never heard of distributive property sooo i dont know what to doo my life is ruined lol
Nah, it was crap, it’s absolutely the same.
The equation was made for trolling and you can come up with many trolling stuff 
The fact stands that it is a poorly formulated equation like Adam said.
If you substitute 9+3 with x:
x= 9+3
You got:
48/2*x
According to the distributive property it would be:
48/(2*x)
But you might as well write it as:
(48/2)*x
Personally I say without the () around 48/2 the distributive property outrules anything else.
Then again, if you don’t use algebra and a substitution, who’s to say the distributive property rules?
However, you can only proof/disproof this with algebra.
In the end it’s an equation where the paranthesis were left out deliberately and it’s made for trolling.
Uh, it’s okay. I had initially refrained from posting that vid out of common decency concerns for the over-the-top language.
However, there is a larger matter of cultural sensitivity. While Americans may think it’s funny, still I can completely understand how others would find it no laughing matter, and not feel a desire to talk on the topic.
At the same time, some of them are people I admire.
Just because America gave the world W. Bush, it doesn’t mean we can even begin to empathize (well, maybe a little…)
Besides, Austria is much better remembered as the birthplace of Mozart, a true genius.
Right on!
It is the Mother Of All Trick Questions.
Isn’t there a Star Trek episode where Captain Kirk got pissed off at an enemy computer and used this “Troll Equation” to blow it up? I’m pretty there was…
hahahahaha thats awesome so do u want my help if so message me
This equation is sloppy formulated… it’s like the:
“Please go buy me 1 pack of milk and if they have eggs bring me 6”
what is a pack of milk i have never heard of such nonsense
Oh, come on. Don’t tell me they don’t have the new Oreo “Milk and Cookie Pack” in your neck of the woods?
I don’t know. The model I’m talking about outsourcing is something I’ve put off finishing up because I’m rather daunted by it. First off, in terms of sheer scale, it’s freaking ginormous. It’s a takeoff on the classic O’Neil Colony, and is so big that it has skyscrapers on the inside surface. You could give it a shot if you want, but I think this is the sort of thing even Andrew Price would spend an hour scratching his head about before he started experimenting…
If you want to have a look at my rough draft of the model, it’s the huge watermellon-shaped thing in the background of this vid… (If you’re really interested in taking it on, message me and I’ll figure out to upload the base model…)
are you being serious i have never heard of this lol
holy crap i didnt know it was that big
this is just proof that using ‘/’ to denote division is asking for trouble as it leads to poorly formulated problems especially if you don’t use () to improve readability if you used the ‘__’ and the general style of formatting that you see in text books I bet you everyone would have given 288 as the answer. right now its a toss up to whether (9+3) is read as part of the denominator or not.
…well, I visualize it as a fraction, which can help separate things out: 48 / [2*(9+3)] so it gives a result of 2. For it to be 288 would be too complicated, I think, since this is supposed to be a brain teaser.
But I have to agree, the formatting and way of representing it can be misleading…though I guess that’s the point 
“i dont want to live on this planet anymore”
It’s a great way of expressing something; there is only one correct answer, and if someone doesn’t know how to work it out then they can find out. It can’t be expressed any clearer.