48÷2(9+3) = ???

[thehealthinspector]

seriously, im dealing with people who only (mis)understand how to do the distributive property, instead of WHY the distributive property is the way it is

distributive property COINCIDES with PEMDAS, it does NOT conflict with it

when you push distribution(multiplication) before the division, you conflict the property with PEMDAS

THEY DO NOT CONFLICT, THEY COINCIDE, distribution is a PROPERTY of pemdas

how do you guys even think the distributive property came about?

its like people dont even want to TRY AND EVEN UNDERSTAND how the distributive property came about, it came about because of PEMDAS

 

[thehealthinspector]

seriously, im dealing with people who only (mis)understand how to do the distributive property, instead of WHY the distributive property is the way it is

distributive property COINCIDES with PEMDAS, it does NOT conflict with it

when you push distribution(multiplication) before the division, you conflict the property with PEMDAS

THEY DO NOT CONFLICT, THEY COINCIDE, distribution is a PROPERTY of pemdas

how do you guys even think the distributive property came about?

its like people dont even want to TRY AND EVEN UNDERSTAND how the distributive property came about, it came about because of PEMDAS

 

[jfmartimcdandruff]

the real question is...where is that division sign on my keyboard?

 

[iron mike]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Like you didn't see my earlier explanation. 

you are wrong, but by your logic you are reading wrong as right. 

It's easy to say that I'm wrong but at least prove it. You can't because all you did was Google the answer, use a calculator or solve it from left to right. 
Or maybe you're just trolling.

the horse has been dead for hours, troll. i enjoy seeing you flounder in your rubbish assessment of this here equation. you are the equivalent of a ballplayer caught in a rundown who has to eventually get tagged out. 

 

[iron mike]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Like you didn't see my earlier explanation. 

you are wrong, but by your logic you are reading wrong as right. 

It's easy to say that I'm wrong but at least prove it. You can't because all you did was Google the answer, use a calculator or solve it from left to right. 
Or maybe you're just trolling.

the horse has been dead for hours, troll. i enjoy seeing you flounder in your rubbish assessment of this here equation. you are the equivalent of a ballplayer caught in a rundown who has to eventually get tagged out. 

 

[jfmartimcdandruff]

the real question is...where is that division sign on my keyboard?

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by JFMartiMcDandruff

the real question is...where is that division sign on my keyboard?

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by JFMartiMcDandruff

the real question is...where is that division sign on my keyboard?

 

[eddiee21]

Holy crap what happened in this thread??

Cliffs?

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

you are wrong, but by your logic you are reading wrong as right. 

It's easy to say that I'm wrong but at least prove it. You can't because all you did was Google the answer, use a calculator or solve it from left to right. 
Or maybe you're just trolling.

the horse has been dead for hours, troll. i enjoy seeing you flounder in your rubbish assessment of this here equation. you are the equivalent of a ballplayer caught in a rundown who has to eventually get tagged out. 

Rubbish is what you keep posting. You don't even know your basic Math yet you still try to participate in a conversation with your nonsense posts. Why don't you post when you have SOMETHING worth posting?

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Iron Mike

you are wrong, but by your logic you are reading wrong as right. 

It's easy to say that I'm wrong but at least prove it. You can't because all you did was Google the answer, use a calculator or solve it from left to right. 
Or maybe you're just trolling.

the horse has been dead for hours, troll. i enjoy seeing you flounder in your rubbish assessment of this here equation. you are the equivalent of a ballplayer caught in a rundown who has to eventually get tagged out. 

Rubbish is what you keep posting. You don't even know your basic Math yet you still try to participate in a conversation with your nonsense posts. Why don't you post when you have SOMETHING worth posting?

 

[eddiee21]

Holy crap what happened in this thread??

Cliffs?

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by eddiee21

Holy crap what happened in this thread??

Cliffs?

Some posters in here don't understand the order of operations for math problems and those that do are arguing with them about it. The answer is 288.

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by eddiee21

Holy crap what happened in this thread??

Cliffs?

Some posters in here don't understand the order of operations for math problems and those that do are arguing with them about it. The answer is 288.

 

[thehealthinspector]

heres what this thread is trolled by

people who want to conflict distributive property with order-of-operations by putting distribution(multiplication) before division

people who want to want to add special exceptions for multiplications in peMdas that CANNT be applied to division

people who want to restructure the problem on paper that conflicts with whats actually there by adding unproven parentheses OR grouping unverified numerators/denominators

follow the rules (order-of-operations) - left to right - thats all you have to do

 

[thehealthinspector]

heres what this thread is trolled by

people who want to conflict distributive property with order-of-operations by putting distribution(multiplication) before division

people who want to want to add special exceptions for multiplications in peMdas that CANNT be applied to division

people who want to restructure the problem on paper that conflicts with whats actually there by adding unproven parentheses OR grouping unverified numerators/denominators

follow the rules (order-of-operations) - left to right - thats all you have to do

 

[tecca nena]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by tecca nena

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

All the explanation you need.
http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741681/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741735/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741752/48-2-9-3-

lol... Math aside your explanation doesnt prove anything because using circular logic to prove your point... If we replace each equation you use with variables its:


" you will only get 288 if you think A = B... but its not!!

A = C (which comes out to 2) which does not = B, because B equeals D (which comes out to 28

again

A =/= B  because it B comes out to 288"

You're either blind or can't comprehend simple Math.

Im not even arguing your math, Im explaining why your logic, or how you came to your conclusion was flawed.. But instead of defending your argument or picking apart my own, you attack me, proving my original point that you just lack the ability to defend your own statements without fallacious arguments

 

[tecca nena]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by tecca nena

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

All the explanation you need.
http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741681/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741735/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741752/48-2-9-3-

lol... Math aside your explanation doesnt prove anything because using circular logic to prove your point... If we replace each equation you use with variables its:


" you will only get 288 if you think A = B... but its not!!

A = C (which comes out to 2) which does not = B, because B equeals D (which comes out to 28

again

A =/= B  because it B comes out to 288"

You're either blind or can't comprehend simple Math.

Im not even arguing your math, Im explaining why your logic, or how you came to your conclusion was flawed.. But instead of defending your argument or picking apart my own, you attack me, proving my original point that you just lack the ability to defend your own statements without fallacious arguments

 

[wallyhopp]

Originally Posted by JFMartiMcDandruff

the real question is...where is that division sign on my keyboard?

ALT+ 246 (using the # pad)

thats probably the only thing I learned coming out of this discusssion

⌡±²9☻☺♥ j?↨§â†‘↓→∟â†

 

[wallyhopp]

Originally Posted by JFMartiMcDandruff

the real question is...where is that division sign on my keyboard?

ALT+ 246 (using the # pad)

thats probably the only thing I learned coming out of this discusssion

⌡±²9☻☺♥ j?↨§â†‘↓→∟â†

 

[jfmartimcdandruff]

Thanks wally

:ha÷

 

[jfmartimcdandruff]

Thanks wally

:ha÷

 

[il prescelto]

Kingcrux31, please take a look at my proof. I'm re-posting it here, and I'm adding a picture of it.

"

Okay, for all the people who think the answer is 2, readthis and let me know what you think.
We start off with 48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12). We add the 9 and 3 first becausethey're in the parenthesis. I think everyone agrees on this step.
Now we have
48/2(12). Let us assume that 48/2(12) = 48/(2(12)) (which is what the peoplewho think the answer is 2 are assuming)
Since multiplication and division are inverse processes (in other words,XY=X(1/Y), we can do the following:
48/(2(12)) = 48(1/(2(12))) = 48 (1/2) (1/12)
Now let us turn those (1/2) and (1/12) back into division sign
48 (1/2) (1/12) = 48/2/12. And 48/2/12 surely does not equal 48/2(12). Therefore,our initial assumption is wrong.

Here’s just the math

48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12). Assume 48/2(12) = 48/(2(12)). Then, 48/2(12)= 48/(2(12)) = 48(1/(2(12))) = 48 (1/2) (1/2) = 48/2/12 =/= 48/2(12). Therefore,our initial assumption is wrong, and 48/2(12) should not be interpreted as48/(2(12)).
If anyone thinks this is wrong, let me know. Andby the way, some guy said people with college education say the answer is 2. MyHarvard, Caltech, MIT, Yale, Stanford, and Cal friends all say 288; I’m the sonof two Cal grads, and I’ve been a student at Cal myself….since we’re talkingabout credentials 

"

 

[il prescelto]

Kingcrux31, please take a look at my proof. I'm re-posting it here, and I'm adding a picture of it.

"

Okay, for all the people who think the answer is 2, readthis and let me know what you think.
We start off with 48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12). We add the 9 and 3 first becausethey're in the parenthesis. I think everyone agrees on this step.
Now we have
48/2(12). Let us assume that 48/2(12) = 48/(2(12)) (which is what the peoplewho think the answer is 2 are assuming)
Since multiplication and division are inverse processes (in other words,XY=X(1/Y), we can do the following:
48/(2(12)) = 48(1/(2(12))) = 48 (1/2) (1/12)
Now let us turn those (1/2) and (1/12) back into division sign
48 (1/2) (1/12) = 48/2/12. And 48/2/12 surely does not equal 48/2(12). Therefore,our initial assumption is wrong.

Here’s just the math

48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12). Assume 48/2(12) = 48/(2(12)). Then, 48/2(12)= 48/(2(12)) = 48(1/(2(12))) = 48 (1/2) (1/2) = 48/2/12 =/= 48/2(12). Therefore,our initial assumption is wrong, and 48/2(12) should not be interpreted as48/(2(12)).
If anyone thinks this is wrong, let me know. Andby the way, some guy said people with college education say the answer is 2. MyHarvard, Caltech, MIT, Yale, Stanford, and Cal friends all say 288; I’m the sonof two Cal grads, and I’ve been a student at Cal myself….since we’re talkingabout credentials 

"

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by tecca nena

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by tecca nena


lol... Math aside your explanation doesnt prove anything because using circular logic to prove your point... If we replace each equation you use with variables its:


" you will only get 288 if you think A = B... but its not!!

A = C (which comes out to 2) which does not = B, because B equeals D (which comes out to 28

again

A =/= B  because it B comes out to 288"

You're either blind or can't comprehend simple Math.

Im not even arguing your math, Im explaining why your logic, or how you came to your conclusion was flawed.. But instead of defending your argument or picking apart my own, you attack me, proving my original point that you just lack the ability to defend your own statements without fallacious arguments