- 911
- 24
^krux, why u aint solve that equation? the answer is pretty ironic.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by pacmagic2002
How is that different from the original problem? last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.
Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah
and it comes up to 288, what's your point?Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by pacmagic2002
How is that different from the original problem? last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by pacmagic2002
How is that different from the original problem? last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.
Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah
and it comes up to 288, what's your point?Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by pacmagic2002
How is that different from the original problem? last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.
I'd say the one who's disagreeing with every modern computational device is the one trolling, but I'm not a mod....Originally Posted by kingcrux31
My point?
Wolfram Alpha is wrong.
Stop trolling already.
I'd say the one who's disagreeing with every modern computational device is the one trolling, but I'm not a mod....Originally Posted by kingcrux31
My point?
Wolfram Alpha is wrong.
Stop trolling already.
I didn't even use Wolfram Alpha. It's the same equation either way you wrote it down. They both come up to 288. If you can tell me step by step how you got to 2, then please do.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
My point?
Wolfram Alpha is wrong.
Stop trolling already.
I didn't even use Wolfram Alpha. It's the same equation either way you wrote it down. They both come up to 288. If you can tell me step by step how you got to 2, then please do.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
My point?
Wolfram Alpha is wrong.
Stop trolling already.
Originally Posted by The Yes Guy
I'd say the one who's disagreeing with every modern computational device is the one trolling, but I'm not a mod....Originally Posted by kingcrux31
My point?
Wolfram Alpha is wrong.
Stop trolling already.
Originally Posted by The Yes Guy
I'd say the one who's disagreeing with every modern computational device is the one trolling, but I'm not a mod....Originally Posted by kingcrux31
My point?
Wolfram Alpha is wrong.
Stop trolling already.
Wrong it's whats inside it that counts not what is attached. Dipset is correct. I can find you endless amounts of sites that say it's whats inside the brackets that count and not what's attached to it. Can you even find any sources?Originally Posted by ncmalko1
Once again dipset... Step number two is wrong. 48/2(9+3) is NOT the same as 48/2 * (9+3). THose are two different questions.
Brackets mean to multiply whats attached to it. What you are writing is 48/2 * * 9+3
YOU HAVE TO SOLVE THE ENTIRE PARANTH BEFORE MOVING TO STEP 2. STEP 1 YOU MUST SOLVE 2(9+3) NOT JUST THE 9+3
Wrong it's whats inside it that counts not what is attached. Dipset is correct. I can find you endless amounts of sites that say it's whats inside the brackets that count and not what's attached to it. Can you even find any sources?Originally Posted by ncmalko1
Once again dipset... Step number two is wrong. 48/2(9+3) is NOT the same as 48/2 * (9+3). THose are two different questions.
Brackets mean to multiply whats attached to it. What you are writing is 48/2 * * 9+3
YOU HAVE TO SOLVE THE ENTIRE PARANTH BEFORE MOVING TO STEP 2. STEP 1 YOU MUST SOLVE 2(9+3) NOT JUST THE 9+3
The thing is, 2 isnt in the parenthesis. So you dont have to multiply right after adding. 2( ) is the same as 2*( ). Its what we were taught early in middle school.Originally Posted by ncmalko1
THe equation isnt 48 over 2.
There is a difference
You must do the entire paranthesis equation first which is 2(9+3) which equals 24.
THE ANSWER IS 2
The thing is, 2 isnt in the parenthesis. So you dont have to multiply right after adding. 2( ) is the same as 2*( ). Its what we were taught early in middle school.Originally Posted by ncmalko1
THe equation isnt 48 over 2.
There is a difference
You must do the entire paranthesis equation first which is 2(9+3) which equals 24.
THE ANSWER IS 2
In a simple problem like this, where the problem follows simply the order of operations, they should, and do, give you the correct answer.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by The Yes Guy
I'd say the one who's disagreeing with every modern computational device is the one trolling, but I'm not a mod....Originally Posted by kingcrux31
My point?
Wolfram Alpha is wrong.
Stop trolling already.if you think every modern computational device will give you the correct answer for everything.