- 10,215
- 3,310
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2001
NO.....IT.....IS.....NOT!!!!!!!!!!!! How you just put something there. Of course that would make the answer 2, BUT THATS NOT THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!
48÷2(9+3) = ???
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by n1k3b4ller,
- Start date
NO.....IT.....IS.....NOT!!!!!!!!!!!! How you just put something there. Of course that would make the answer 2, BUT THATS NOT THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- 10,215
- 3,310
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2001
NO.....IT.....IS.....NOT!!!!!!!!!!!! How you just put something there. Of course that would make the answer 2, BUT THATS NOT THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- 2,744
- 12
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
You obviously did not pay attention, I said its the SAME as.
48/2(9+3)
distribute the 2
48/(18+6)
do whats in the parenthesis, still following the Order of operations.
48/24 = 2
point still stands
- 2,744
- 12
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
You obviously did not pay attention, I said its the SAME as.
48/2(9+3)
distribute the 2
48/(18+6)
do whats in the parenthesis, still following the Order of operations.
48/24 = 2
point still stands
- 24,030
- 1,927
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
distribution is multiplication... and thats after Parenthesis
- 24,030
- 1,927
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
distribution is multiplication... and thats after Parenthesis
- 2,744
- 12
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
distribution is NOT multiplication. The 2 being in front of the parenthesis is no coincidence, the two is stating that the parenthesis (and everything in it) MUST be multiplied by 2 before ANYTHING. If you can't understand this I feel sorry for you.
- 2,744
- 12
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
distribution is NOT multiplication. The 2 being in front of the parenthesis is no coincidence, the two is stating that the parenthesis (and everything in it) MUST be multiplied by 2 before ANYTHING. If you can't understand this I feel sorry for you.
- 565
- 32
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
288!, Seriously? "Wallace, youre off the money!..."
- 565
- 32
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
288!, Seriously? "Wallace, youre off the money!..."
- 9,134
- 1,012
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
except its not the automatically the same, its not guaranteed
the only guaranteed equivalent of 2(9+3) is (2)(9+3), youre adding things that arent proven
- 9,134
- 1,012
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
except its not the automatically the same, its not guaranteed
the only guaranteed equivalent of 2(9+3) is (2)(9+3), youre adding things that arent proven
- 24,030
- 1,927
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
to be honest, I'm on the fence about that
you may be right but the only examples I find about the distributive property are simpler examples than this, so I can't really tell.
but I came to 288 my first shot so I'mma stand by it for the hell of it.
also people say working backwards 2 doesn't check out.
- 24,030
- 1,927
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
to be honest, I'm on the fence about that
you may be right but the only examples I find about the distributive property are simpler examples than this, so I can't really tell.
but I came to 288 my first shot so I'mma stand by it for the hell of it.
also people say working backwards 2 doesn't check out.
- 1,138
- 136
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2007
48/2(9+3)=48/2(12)=48/2x12=288
- 1,138
- 136
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2007
48/2(9+3)=48/2(12)=48/2x12=288
- 4,201
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2011
Lol wow
- 4,201
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2011
Lol wow
- 24,030
- 1,927
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
actually I think this is more evidence that the distributive property is actually just multiplication
http://www.ekacademy.org/mines78/vmd/full/d/multiplicationoveraddition.htm
it's used algebraically to simplify unknowns, but we don't have any unknowns, so it's just simple multiplication, and doesn't go before solving the parenthesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_property
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/66676.html
^^^
this right there, if understood correctly means that we shouldn't use the distributive property in this case,
it's for simplifying a simple algebraic equation, which this is not.
distributing actually ALTERS the meaning of this question!
so we shouldnt do it!
it's 288
EDIT:
also I now see how people got 8.666666
from
48/2(9+3)
as
48/18+6
2.666666+6
8.66666
http://www.ekacademy.org/mines78/vmd/full/d/multiplicationoveraddition.htm
it's used algebraically to simplify unknowns, but we don't have any unknowns, so it's just simple multiplication, and doesn't go before solving the parenthesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_property
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/66676.html
^^^
this right there, if understood correctly means that we shouldn't use the distributive property in this case,
it's for simplifying a simple algebraic equation, which this is not.
distributing actually ALTERS the meaning of this question!
so we shouldnt do it!
it's 288
EDIT:
also I now see how people got 8.666666
from
48/2(9+3)
as
48/18+6
2.666666+6
8.66666
- 24,030
- 1,927
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
actually I think this is more evidence that the distributive property is actually just multiplication
http://www.ekacademy.org/mines78/vmd/full/d/multiplicationoveraddition.htm
it's used algebraically to simplify unknowns, but we don't have any unknowns, so it's just simple multiplication, and doesn't go before solving the parenthesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_property
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/66676.html
^^^
this right there, if understood correctly means that we shouldn't use the distributive property in this case,
it's for simplifying a simple algebraic equation, which this is not.
distributing actually ALTERS the meaning of this question!
so we shouldnt do it!
it's 288
EDIT:
also I now see how people got 8.666666
from
48/2(9+3)
as
48/18+6
2.666666+6
8.66666
http://www.ekacademy.org/mines78/vmd/full/d/multiplicationoveraddition.htm
it's used algebraically to simplify unknowns, but we don't have any unknowns, so it's just simple multiplication, and doesn't go before solving the parenthesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_property
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/66676.html
^^^
this right there, if understood correctly means that we shouldn't use the distributive property in this case,
it's for simplifying a simple algebraic equation, which this is not.
distributing actually ALTERS the meaning of this question!
so we shouldnt do it!
it's 288
EDIT:
also I now see how people got 8.666666
from
48/2(9+3)
as
48/18+6
2.666666+6
8.66666
- 8,259
- 573
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- 8,259
- 573
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- 111
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2011
this guy serious?? we throwing in random stuff now? You can't just add parentheses that completely alters it.....why don't you just change all the #'s while you are at it
