# Reopening a 48/2(9+3) question (ambiguous order of operations)?

There was an internet meme started last year about ambiguously written arithmetical expressions leading to arguments for different possible values. Of course this is not a good place to host pointless arguments, but this is a place where people can be directed to definitive confirmation of the ambiguity of such expressions as $48/2(9+3)$, with the highest voted answer to this post from April last year being a good example.

Yesterday a duplicate was asked, and it was closed as a duplicate. However, it was closed as a duplicate of a question that is also closed, so this does not leave a place to post an answer.

I am in favor of reopening the older version, What is 48÷2(9+3)?, and have cast a vote to do so. I think that "protecting" the question to block new users from answering is a good idea.

If you think that the question should be closed, why?

Incidentally, I had voted to close the older question, but if I remember correctly, I voted to close it as a duplicate of an even older question which I had answered, but instead the older question was merged into the newer one. Regardless, I am now in favor of reopening.

• It may be that the closing reason is not fitting very well, but I don't think the question should be left open. I don't have a particularly good argument for it now, and I cannot guarantee I will have one later. It just doesn't feel like this question fits. – Asaf Karagila Jul 27 '12 at 21:42
• I wonder if the votes on this meta question mean "I agree/disagree with reopening" or "This is a good/bad question that is/is not worth discussing". – Rahul Jul 28 '12 at 0:36
• I think we should have a canonical version of this question, so that we can use it to close other questions of this type. So I will cast the final vote to reopen if someone casts a 4th vote (it's now at 3). Ping me here if you do. – Bill Dubuque Jul 28 '12 at 0:46
• @Bill, I just cast the 5th vote. – Gerry Myerson Jul 28 '12 at 1:00
• I've protected the question, too. – J. M. is a poor mathematician Jul 28 '12 at 1:12
• ...and within minutes of reopening, a close vote was cast on it. Huh. – J. M. is a poor mathematician Jul 28 '12 at 1:29
• @Gerry Thanks. Alas, it's already attracted another close vote. I added a comment there referring to this meta question. Please upvote it so folks see it. – Bill Dubuque Jul 28 '12 at 1:30
• @J.M. See above. – Bill Dubuque Jul 28 '12 at 1:30
• There are currently 4 close votes, 1 as off-topic, 1 as too localized, and 2 as exact duplicate. – Jonas Meyer Jul 28 '12 at 6:20
• ...and the question's closed. How now, brown cow? – J. M. is a poor mathematician Jul 28 '12 at 11:59
• I find it irritating that all the comments to wait with voting were ignored (same with this instance). What's the point of having a meta thread if people don't participate and choose to act autonomously? – t.b. Jul 28 '12 at 12:08
• @t.b. Perhaps those who voted to close didn't see my comment linking here, since it requires expanding the comments (currently the comment has 4 votes, which is too low to be shown unexpanded). – Bill Dubuque Jul 28 '12 at 13:04
• Yes, I did not see the note about the meta thread until after I voted to close (and I didn't think to look at the date of the question to see that it is old). – Carl Mummert Jul 28 '12 at 13:18
• FWIW I am content with the change to the question being closed as duplicate. – Jonas Meyer Oct 28 '17 at 16:57