do work son
Banned
- 17,118
- 5,186
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
that isn't restructuring though? oh ok.Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector
i can refute it
(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this
(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses
keep trying to restructure the problem on paper
Restructure? I didn't change anything. I just broke it down to you and you still don't get it.
You can't even refute a SIMPLE problem THOROUGHLY explained on paper. All you did was repost the original problem with more ((( and ))) not really explaining anything.
How old are you?
NO, youre "breaking it down" is exactly where you restructure is coming from... why do you feel the need to REwrite it down instead of working it how it is?
youre misconstrued understanding ON THE PAPER is your restructure
Originally Posted by do work son
Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector
i can refute it
(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this
(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses
keep trying to restructure the problem on paper
you just split up the denominator, taking out the term (9+3) and turning this into a multiplication problem instead of a division problem.
sorry, please dont tell me about numerators and denominators that no one can verify
theres only order of operations