- 385
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
king krux please find the nearest sylvan learning center
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
kingcrux31 how would you write this down as a faction : [h3]48÷(2(9+3)) ? [/h3]Originally Posted by Bachelor frog
kingcrux31 how would you write this down as a faction : [h3]48÷(2(9+3)) ? [/h3]Originally Posted by Bachelor frog
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Show me a Math problem with a ÷(2(9+3))Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector
Originally Posted by do work son
the examples on that website pretty much seal the deal. team 2 ftw
that is straight up bull
like i said 10 pages ago, you guys are trying to misconstrue our common understanding of... 2(9+3)... aka... 2*(9+3)... aka... (2)(9+3)... aka... (2)*(9+3)... in order to mean something that its not... ie (((((2(9+3))))))
theres 5 other concepts in PEmDAS that follow ALL rules ALL the time, but because of this particular placement, yall want to make it out to be peMdas
NO OTHER CONCEPT BREAKS THE RULES LIKE THAT, yall are misconstruing placement of the 2
This is just ridiculous. It's like saying divide AND multiply.
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Show me a Math problem with a ÷(2(9+3))Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector
Originally Posted by do work son
the examples on that website pretty much seal the deal. team 2 ftw
that is straight up bull
like i said 10 pages ago, you guys are trying to misconstrue our common understanding of... 2(9+3)... aka... 2*(9+3)... aka... (2)(9+3)... aka... (2)*(9+3)... in order to mean something that its not... ie (((((2(9+3))))))
theres 5 other concepts in PEmDAS that follow ALL rules ALL the time, but because of this particular placement, yall want to make it out to be peMdas
NO OTHER CONCEPT BREAKS THE RULES LIKE THAT, yall are misconstruing placement of the 2
This is just ridiculous. It's like saying divide AND multiply.
Why because I proved you wrong? Stop participating in this thread already since you have nothing else to contribute.Originally Posted by Iron Mike
king krux please find the nearest sylvan learning center
Why because I proved you wrong? Stop participating in this thread already since you have nothing else to contribute.Originally Posted by Iron Mike
king krux please find the nearest sylvan learning center
The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "Ã" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!Originally Posted by GreenRanger
Originally Posted by dland24
Can anyone please show me ANY source which EXPLICITLY states that the first part of the order of operations is not just whats inside the parentheses, but anything connected to them as well?
"That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy"
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm
The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "Ã" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!Originally Posted by GreenRanger
Originally Posted by dland24
Can anyone please show me ANY source which EXPLICITLY states that the first part of the order of operations is not just whats inside the parentheses, but anything connected to them as well?
"That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy"
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm
Show me a Math problem with a ÷(2(9+3))
This is just ridiculous. It's like saying divide AND multiply.
Show me a Math problem with a ÷(2(9+3))
This is just ridiculous. It's like saying divide AND multiply.
Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Show me a Math problem with a ÷(2(9+3))Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector
that is straight up bull
like i said 10 pages ago, you guys are trying to misconstrue our common understanding of... 2(9+3)... aka... 2*(9+3)... aka... (2)(9+3)... aka... (2)*(9+3)... in order to mean something that its not... ie (((((2(9+3))))))
theres 5 other concepts in PEmDAS that follow ALL rules ALL the time, but because of this particular placement, yall want to make it out to be peMdas
NO OTHER CONCEPT BREAKS THE RULES LIKE THAT, yall are misconstruing placement of the 2
This is just ridiculous. It's like saying divide AND multiply.
NO, whats ridiculous is that you guys are trying to make a special exception for multiplication, which is bull
yall are trying to make a special rule JUST FOR MULTLIPLICATION, just because of how we understand it ... 2(9+3)... aka... 2*(9+3)... aka... (2)(9+3)... aka... (2)*(9+3)
no other concept in PEmDAS does that, but yall want to make up a special rule just for multiplication, THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS
EXPONENTIALS doesnt even need this special rule because we all understand ORDER OF OPERATIONS
Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Show me a Math problem with a ÷(2(9+3))Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector
that is straight up bull
like i said 10 pages ago, you guys are trying to misconstrue our common understanding of... 2(9+3)... aka... 2*(9+3)... aka... (2)(9+3)... aka... (2)*(9+3)... in order to mean something that its not... ie (((((2(9+3))))))
theres 5 other concepts in PEmDAS that follow ALL rules ALL the time, but because of this particular placement, yall want to make it out to be peMdas
NO OTHER CONCEPT BREAKS THE RULES LIKE THAT, yall are misconstruing placement of the 2
This is just ridiculous. It's like saying divide AND multiply.
NO, whats ridiculous is that you guys are trying to make a special exception for multiplication, which is bull
yall are trying to make a special rule JUST FOR MULTLIPLICATION, just because of how we understand it ... 2(9+3)... aka... 2*(9+3)... aka... (2)(9+3)... aka... (2)*(9+3)
no other concept in PEmDAS does that, but yall want to make up a special rule just for multiplication, THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS
EXPONENTIALS doesnt even need this special rule because we all understand ORDER OF OPERATIONS
you must be a Rhodes Scholar.
you must be a Rhodes Scholar.
Yes this is very rare but that's the whole point why people get confused and get 2Originally Posted by Bachelor frog
Show me a Math problem with a ÷(2(9+3))
This is just ridiculous. It's like saying divide AND multiply.
Yes this is very rare but that's the whole point why people get confused and get 2Originally Posted by Bachelor frog
Show me a Math problem with a ÷(2(9+3))
This is just ridiculous. It's like saying divide AND multiply.
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Show me a Math problem with a ÷(2(9+3))
This is just ridiculous. It's like saying divide AND multiply.
NO, whats ridiculous is that you guys are trying to make a special exception for multiplication, which is bull
yall are trying to make a special rule JUST FOR MULTLIPLICATION, just because of how we understand it ... 2(9+3)... aka... 2*(9+3)... aka... (2)(9+3)... aka... (2)*(9+3)
no other concept in PEmDAS does that, but yall want to make up a special rule just for multiplication, THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS
EXPONENTIALS doesnt even need this special rule because we all understand ORDER OF OPERATIONS
AGAIN, show me a Math problem with a ÷(2(9+3))
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Show me a Math problem with a ÷(2(9+3))
This is just ridiculous. It's like saying divide AND multiply.
NO, whats ridiculous is that you guys are trying to make a special exception for multiplication, which is bull
yall are trying to make a special rule JUST FOR MULTLIPLICATION, just because of how we understand it ... 2(9+3)... aka... 2*(9+3)... aka... (2)(9+3)... aka... (2)*(9+3)
no other concept in PEmDAS does that, but yall want to make up a special rule just for multiplication, THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS
EXPONENTIALS doesnt even need this special rule because we all understand ORDER OF OPERATIONS
AGAIN, show me a Math problem with a ÷(2(9+3))
The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "Ã" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!Originally Posted by ScottHallWithAPick
The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "Ã" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!Originally Posted by GreenRanger
Originally Posted by dland24
Can anyone please show me ANY source which EXPLICITLY states that the first part of the order of operations is not just whats inside the parentheses, but anything connected to them as well?
"That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy"
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm
(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)