It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yes that is a good source explaining the different calculation methods, but I think I addressed some things they didn't address.
Anyway I got 288.
Knowyourmeme article on this actually breaks it down fairly well.
No, that's not the problem. They did multiply in both cases, even when there's no operator. The discrepancy results from the sequence in which operations are performed.
If you need a calculator do that equation then you deserve to be mislead!
They just didn't make the terms multiply when there is no operator in between them. Read the manual!
I'm very biased to think so because my textbooks followed this convention, and it's still the convention in some physics journals. I was actually quite shocked to find about half the population polled disagrees with this. This is a partially accepted convention, but not universal. I say it would benefit everyone if it was universal.
It seems that once a divide sign is placed everything that comes after is part of the denominator.
Different calculators follow different orders of operations. Most non-scientific calculators without a stack work left to right without any priority given to different operators, for example giving
1 + 2 X 3 = 9
while more sophisticated calculators will use a more standard priority, for example giving
1 + 2 X 3 = 7
The Microsoft Calculator program uses the former in its standard view and the latter in its scientific and programmer views.
As I explained in the OP, the O stands for "Order", which is a way of saying exponent or power. If you were taught O meant off then I would scold your teacher.
We were taught BODMAS
I'm not a math wiz or anything, but I was taught the parentheses are dealt with first: (9+3) = 12
Then you would calculate 48/2: 24
So you are left with 24(12) or 24x12. That equals 288.
I'm smarter than a calculator!