One of these calculators does not follow the rules of BEDMAS.
2 thoughts on “2 or 288?”
agrajag9
Incidentally, the TI-85 is incorrect. BEDMAS is not a very good mnemonic. Neither division nor multiplication takes precedent over the other as division is actually shorthand for writing out multiplication by the multiplicative inverse. This is analogous to the way neither subtraction nor addition takes precedent over the other as subtraction is shorthand for writing out addition of the additive inverse.
dook
For the record, my old TI-80 gives 2 as well.
PEMDAS isn’t a law of nature, it’s a rule of thumb for interpreting grammatically incorrect expressions.
Strictly speaking, 48/2(9+3) should be written as either “(48)/((2)*((9)+(3)))” or “((48)/(2))*((9)+(3))”, depending on intent.
4.71 (7 votes)
Loading...
Incidentally, the TI-85 is incorrect. BEDMAS is not a very good mnemonic. Neither division nor multiplication takes precedent over the other as division is actually shorthand for writing out multiplication by the multiplicative inverse. This is analogous to the way neither subtraction nor addition takes precedent over the other as subtraction is shorthand for writing out addition of the additive inverse.
For the record, my old TI-80 gives 2 as well.
PEMDAS isn’t a law of nature, it’s a rule of thumb for interpreting grammatically incorrect expressions.
Strictly speaking, 48/2(9+3) should be written as either “(48)/((2)*((9)+(3)))” or “((48)/(2))*((9)+(3))”, depending on intent.