48÷2(9+3) = ???

[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

 

[iron mike]

going to sleep, and have class in the very near morning. i leave you with kenny powers who has a catch phrase, which happens to be appropriate. 

 

[iron mike]

going to sleep, and have class in the very near morning. i leave you with kenny powers who has a catch phrase, which happens to be appropriate. 

 

[megachamploo]

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.

People who think 2 is the answer either think:

1). Because the 2 is next to the (9+3) it must be distributed. This is wrong because distributive property does not take precedence OVER order of operations. It is a valid method of reorganizing a problem AFTER the terms have been simplified using order of operations. You're supposed to simplify what you can using order of operations before you apply distributive property. In this case after you simplify, there is nothing to distribute.

or

2). Because the 2 is next to the (9+3) without a multiplication symbol it belongs to the parentheses and therefore by order of operations, you must multiply the 12 by the 2 in order for the P of Pemdas to be satisfied. This is wrong because if the 2 really is a part of the parentheses then 2(4-2)^2 would equal 16 because you'd have to multiply the 2 into the (4-2) before you do the exponent to follow order of operations.

or

3). Because the 2 is next to the (9+3) without a multiplication symbol it belongs in the denominator because of the juxtaposition rule. This is also wrong because even 1/2x = x/2 if you don't explicitly write it as 1/(2x). Yes, people will understand that you meant 1/(2x) when you write 1/2x for simplicity and they know you otherwise would have wrote it x/2. But on a math test, if you write 1/2x on a horizontal line, it means x/2.

or

4). Because the 2 is next to the (9+3) without a multiplication symbol, it means that not only is this multiplication, it's special because they have to be stuck to each other. This one is just dumb because it has no basis in a math rule and it even breaks the rules from the order of operations.



Your paper seems to fall under number 3. bro. Which is the most understandable excuse to have for getting 2 imo.

 

[megachamploo]

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.

People who think 2 is the answer either think:

1). Because the 2 is next to the (9+3) it must be distributed. This is wrong because distributive property does not take precedence OVER order of operations. It is a valid method of reorganizing a problem AFTER the terms have been simplified using order of operations. You're supposed to simplify what you can using order of operations before you apply distributive property. In this case after you simplify, there is nothing to distribute.

or

2). Because the 2 is next to the (9+3) without a multiplication symbol it belongs to the parentheses and therefore by order of operations, you must multiply the 12 by the 2 in order for the P of Pemdas to be satisfied. This is wrong because if the 2 really is a part of the parentheses then 2(4-2)^2 would equal 16 because you'd have to multiply the 2 into the (4-2) before you do the exponent to follow order of operations.

or

3). Because the 2 is next to the (9+3) without a multiplication symbol it belongs in the denominator because of the juxtaposition rule. This is also wrong because even 1/2x = x/2 if you don't explicitly write it as 1/(2x). Yes, people will understand that you meant 1/(2x) when you write 1/2x for simplicity and they know you otherwise would have wrote it x/2. But on a math test, if you write 1/2x on a horizontal line, it means x/2.

or

4). Because the 2 is next to the (9+3) without a multiplication symbol, it means that not only is this multiplication, it's special because they have to be stuck to each other. This one is just dumb because it has no basis in a math rule and it even breaks the rules from the order of operations.



Your paper seems to fall under number 3. bro. Which is the most understandable excuse to have for getting 2 imo.

 

[jfmartimcdandruff]

whooo team 288 !

 

[jfmartimcdandruff]

whooo team 288 !

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by megachamploo

1). Because the 2 is next to the (9+3) it must be distributed. This is wrong because distributive property does not take precedence OVER order of operations. It is a valid method of reorganizing a problem AFTER the terms have been simplified using order of operations. You're supposed to simplify what you can using order of operations before you apply distributive property. In this case after you simplify, there is nothing to distribute.

THIS GUY GETS IT

the distributive property does not conflict with order of operations

2 people are causing them to conflict when they put multiplication(distribution) BEFORE division

NEITHER comes first, its left to right

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by megachamploo

1). Because the 2 is next to the (9+3) it must be distributed. This is wrong because distributive property does not take precedence OVER order of operations. It is a valid method of reorganizing a problem AFTER the terms have been simplified using order of operations. You're supposed to simplify what you can using order of operations before you apply distributive property. In this case after you simplify, there is nothing to distribute.

THIS GUY GETS IT

the distributive property does not conflict with order of operations

2 people are causing them to conflict when they put multiplication(distribution) BEFORE division

NEITHER comes first, its left to right

 

[il prescelto]

only one person so far has considered my proof, and they're now convinced the answer is 288... come on, all you guys that think its 2, I even uploaded a picture! okay, it's not as big as kingcrux's, but still....

 

[il prescelto]

only one person so far has considered my proof, and they're now convinced the answer is 288... come on, all you guys that think its 2, I even uploaded a picture! okay, it's not as big as kingcrux's, but still....

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

heres that 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

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

heres that 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

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by 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 

"

Here's where you got it wrong.


Same as what I posted earlier

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by 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 

"

Here's where you got it wrong.


Same as what I posted earlier

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by 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 

"

This is clever for people who realize that 2(12) just means 2x12. But there are many people that believe that the 2(12) means that the 2 and the 12 are stuck together under the denominator, in which case 48/2/12 really does equal 48/2(12)

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by 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 

"

This is clever for people who realize that 2(12) just means 2x12. But there are many people that believe that the 2(12) means that the 2 and the 12 are stuck together under the denominator, in which case 48/2/12 really does equal 48/2(12)

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by 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 

"

Here's where you got it wrong.


Same as what I posted earlier

Why do you think the (9+3) belongs in the denominator? did you read my earlier post quoting you?

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by 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 

"

Here's where you got it wrong.


Same as what I posted earlier

Why do you think the (9+3) belongs in the denominator? did you read my earlier post quoting you?

 

[il prescelto]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by 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 

"

Here's where you got it wrong.


Same as what I posted earlier

Okay, I agree that the two aren't equal, that doesn't prove anything, though. As a matter of fact, the last line in my proof STATES that the two aren't equal; I wrote exactly the same thing as you did, so we agree on that...maybe you didn't read it very carefully?
Where in my proof did I ever say that the two WERE equal? Where in my proof did I do something that was wrong?

 

[il prescelto]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by 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 

"

Here's where you got it wrong.


Same as what I posted earlier

Okay, I agree that the two aren't equal, that doesn't prove anything, though. As a matter of fact, the last line in my proof STATES that the two aren't equal; I wrote exactly the same thing as you did, so we agree on that...maybe you didn't read it very carefully?
Where in my proof did I ever say that the two WERE equal? Where in my proof did I do something that was wrong?

 

[tecca nena]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by tecca nena

Originally Posted by kingcrux31


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

Oh I never stated this, and now Im beginning to question your reading comprehension skills because for the 3rd time Ive stated its not about your math.. I'll let everyone else argue that one ... One side equals 2 and the other equals 288... but the only argument you've stated is to say the original problem equals the equation that equals 2 and not 288.. "but its not" is as deep as you go into refuting the other side

 

[tecca nena]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by tecca nena

Originally Posted by kingcrux31


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

Oh I never stated this, and now Im beginning to question your reading comprehension skills because for the 3rd time Ive stated its not about your math.. I'll let everyone else argue that one ... One side equals 2 and the other equals 288... but the only argument you've stated is to say the original problem equals the equation that equals 2 and not 288.. "but its not" is as deep as you go into refuting the other side

 

[inspectah derek]

We made it on the list! 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293

 

[inspectah derek]

We made it on the list! 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293