48÷2(9+3) = ???

[usainboltisfast]

Team 2 are all these answers wrong also??

http://www.oceanic.name/m...attachment.php?attId=362

Team 2 I have a challenge for you find an example similar to this problem that proves your point. I have pointed out numerous example problems that show your methods are incorrect. I would expect you guys to show proof of your theory.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Team 2 are all these answers wrong also??

http://www.oceanic.name/m...attachment.php?attId=362

Team 2 I have a challenge for you find an example similar to this problem that proves your point. I have pointed out numerous example problems that show your methods are incorrect. I would expect you guys to show proof of your theory.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

Originally Posted by do work son


9. now you're gonna say how the website says 9 is the wrong answer, then im going to reply with this website+

http://www.freemathhelp.c...stributive-property.html

which shows if you copy and paste the problem out of the title it gives you 2.

EDIT: that's a website team 288 posted in this thread btw

i see how you are getting 9, but i still think you are performing the Order of Op. incorrectly
Starting from left to right ,

36÷4(5-2)+6

simplify inside the parenthesis, rewrite the newly simplified problem

36÷4(3)+6

starting from left to right in the newly simplified problem

perform the Order of op. 36÷4(3)+6

(if you distribute that 3 into (4) you are multiplying, and essentially skipping a step in the order of op...)




9(3)+6

back to beginning of the new problem, perform the order of op, simplify, new problem

24+6=

33

36÷4(5-2)+6

that has 3 separate terms.
36
4(5-2)
6

you complete PEMDAS to each term, then continue to do pemdas to the whole problem after all the terms have been simplified. the only complex term here is 4(5-2) therefore you get 4(3)=12

now your 3 terms are
36
12
6

insert the original signs to get 36÷12+6
solve from left to right to get 9

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

Originally Posted by do work son


9. now you're gonna say how the website says 9 is the wrong answer, then im going to reply with this website+

http://www.freemathhelp.c...stributive-property.html

which shows if you copy and paste the problem out of the title it gives you 2.

EDIT: that's a website team 288 posted in this thread btw

i see how you are getting 9, but i still think you are performing the Order of Op. incorrectly
Starting from left to right ,

36÷4(5-2)+6

simplify inside the parenthesis, rewrite the newly simplified problem

36÷4(3)+6

starting from left to right in the newly simplified problem

perform the Order of op. 36÷4(3)+6

(if you distribute that 3 into (4) you are multiplying, and essentially skipping a step in the order of op...)




9(3)+6

back to beginning of the new problem, perform the order of op, simplify, new problem

24+6=

33

36÷4(5-2)+6

that has 3 separate terms.
36
4(5-2)
6

you complete PEMDAS to each term, then continue to do pemdas to the whole problem after all the terms have been simplified. the only complex term here is 4(5-2) therefore you get 4(3)=12

now your 3 terms are
36
12
6

insert the original signs to get 36÷12+6
solve from left to right to get 9

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

i see how you are getting 9, but i still think you are performing the Order of Op. incorrectly
Starting from left to right ,

36÷4(5-2)+6

simplify inside the parenthesis, rewrite the newly simplified problem

36÷4(3)+6

starting from left to right in the newly simplified problem

perform the Order of op. 36÷4(3)+6

(if you distribute that 3 into (4) you are multiplying, and essentially skipping a step in the order of op...)




9(3)+6

back to beginning of the new problem, perform the order of op, simplify, new problem

24+6=

33

36÷4(5-2)+6

that has 3 separate terms.
36
4(5-2)
6

you complete PEMDAS to each term, then continue to do pemdas to the whole problem after all the terms have been simplified. the only complex term here is 4(5-2) therefore you get 4(3)=12

now your 3 terms are
36
12
6

insert the original signs to get 36÷12+6
solve from left to right to get 9

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

Yes. 4(5-2) is not one term. As I posted in my last posting the answers CLEARLY remove the parenthesis after they they have been evaluated.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

i see how you are getting 9, but i still think you are performing the Order of Op. incorrectly
Starting from left to right ,

36÷4(5-2)+6

simplify inside the parenthesis, rewrite the newly simplified problem

36÷4(3)+6

starting from left to right in the newly simplified problem

perform the Order of op. 36÷4(3)+6

(if you distribute that 3 into (4) you are multiplying, and essentially skipping a step in the order of op...)




9(3)+6

back to beginning of the new problem, perform the order of op, simplify, new problem

24+6=

33

36÷4(5-2)+6

that has 3 separate terms.
36
4(5-2)
6

you complete PEMDAS to each term, then continue to do pemdas to the whole problem after all the terms have been simplified. the only complex term here is 4(5-2) therefore you get 4(3)=12

now your 3 terms are
36
12
6

insert the original signs to get 36÷12+6
solve from left to right to get 9

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

Yes. 4(5-2) is not one term. As I posted in my last posting the answers CLEARLY remove the parenthesis after they they have been evaluated.

 

[yankees1129]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

i see how you are getting 9, but i still think you are performing the Order of Op. incorrectly
Starting from left to right ,

36÷4(5-2)+6

simplify inside the parenthesis, rewrite the newly simplified problem

36÷4(3)+6

starting from left to right in the newly simplified problem

perform the Order of op. 36÷4(3)+6

(if you distribute that 3 into (4) you are multiplying, and essentially skipping a step in the order of op...)




9(3)+6

back to beginning of the new problem, perform the order of op, simplify, new problem

24+6=

33

36÷4(5-2)+6

that has 3 separate terms.
36
4(5-2)
6

you complete PEMDAS to each term, then continue to do pemdas to the whole problem after all the terms have been simplified. the only complex term here is 4(5-2) therefore you get 4(3)=12

now your 3 terms are
36
12
6

insert the original signs to get 36÷12+6
solve from left to right to get 9

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. that does not apply here.

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

 

[yankees1129]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

i see how you are getting 9, but i still think you are performing the Order of Op. incorrectly
Starting from left to right ,

36÷4(5-2)+6

simplify inside the parenthesis, rewrite the newly simplified problem

36÷4(3)+6

starting from left to right in the newly simplified problem

perform the Order of op. 36÷4(3)+6

(if you distribute that 3 into (4) you are multiplying, and essentially skipping a step in the order of op...)




9(3)+6

back to beginning of the new problem, perform the order of op, simplify, new problem

24+6=

33

36÷4(5-2)+6

that has 3 separate terms.
36
4(5-2)
6

you complete PEMDAS to each term, then continue to do pemdas to the whole problem after all the terms have been simplified. the only complex term here is 4(5-2) therefore you get 4(3)=12

now your 3 terms are
36
12
6

insert the original signs to get 36÷12+6
solve from left to right to get 9

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. that does not apply here.

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

 

[limitedretroog]

SMFH, Team 2 are some stubborn mofos...

 

[limitedretroog]

SMFH, Team 2 are some stubborn mofos...

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by yankees1129

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son


36÷4(5-2)+6

that has 3 separate terms.
36
4(5-2)
6

you complete PEMDAS to each term, then continue to do pemdas to the whole problem after all the terms have been simplified. the only complex term here is 4(5-2) therefore you get 4(3)=12

now your 3 terms are
36
12
6

insert the original signs to get 36÷12+6
solve from left to right to get 9

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. that does not apply here.

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

no, it isnt lol. it would be 12.

4(3)
12

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by yankees1129

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son


36÷4(5-2)+6

that has 3 separate terms.
36
4(5-2)
6

you complete PEMDAS to each term, then continue to do pemdas to the whole problem after all the terms have been simplified. the only complex term here is 4(5-2) therefore you get 4(3)=12

now your 3 terms are
36
12
6

insert the original signs to get 36÷12+6
solve from left to right to get 9

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. that does not apply here.

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

no, it isnt lol. it would be 12.

4(3)
12

 

[k2theablam]

Originally Posted by yankees1129

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son


36÷4(5-2)+6

that has 3 separate terms.
36
4(5-2)
6

you complete PEMDAS to each term, then continue to do pemdas to the whole problem after all the terms have been simplified. the only complex term here is 4(5-2) therefore you get 4(3)=12

now your 3 terms are
36
12
6

insert the original signs to get 36÷12+6
solve from left to right to get 9

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]that does not apply here.[/color]

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

Why wouldn't it apply? Did you make that up?

Can't you rewrite that as:

x(y+z)

x(y) + x(z)

That's the distributive property isn't it? What's the big deal?

 

[k2theablam]

Originally Posted by yankees1129

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son


36÷4(5-2)+6

that has 3 separate terms.
36
4(5-2)
6

you complete PEMDAS to each term, then continue to do pemdas to the whole problem after all the terms have been simplified. the only complex term here is 4(5-2) therefore you get 4(3)=12

now your 3 terms are
36
12
6

insert the original signs to get 36÷12+6
solve from left to right to get 9

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]that does not apply here.[/color]

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

Why wouldn't it apply? Did you make that up?

Can't you rewrite that as:

x(y+z)

x(y) + x(z)

That's the distributive property isn't it? What's the big deal?

 

[yungchris504]

I can't believe this really went 92 pages.

x(y-z) is just the x factored out.

x(y-z) = xy-xz

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by yankees1129

Originally Posted by do work son

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. that does not apply here.

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

no, it isnt lol. it would be 12.

((4*5) -(4*2))
(20 -

12

I like your choice of answering only CERTAIN questions while overlooking the vast amount of reasonable proof i have presented and example problems that cearly show how equations should be evaluated.

 

[yankees1129]

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by yankees1129

Originally Posted by do work son

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]that does not apply here.[/color]

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

Why wouldn't it apply? Did you make that up?

Can't you rewrite that as:

x(y+z)

x(y) + x(z)

That's the distributive property isn't it? What's the big deal?

where in PEMDAS do u see distributive property? seriously. it may work, but thats not the proper way to solve the equation.

 

[yankees1129]

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by yankees1129

Originally Posted by do work son

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]that does not apply here.[/color]

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

Why wouldn't it apply? Did you make that up?

Can't you rewrite that as:

x(y+z)

x(y) + x(z)

That's the distributive property isn't it? What's the big deal?

where in PEMDAS do u see distributive property? seriously. it may work, but thats not the proper way to solve the equation.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by yankees1129

Originally Posted by do work son

is there anything wrong with this proof? regardless of what the website says, do you find any fundamental issue with this argument?

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. that does not apply here.

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

no, it isnt lol. it would be 12.

((4*5) -(4*2))
(20 -

12

I like your choice of answering only CERTAIN questions while overlooking the vast amount of reasonable proof i have presented and example problems that cearly show how equations should be evaluated.

 

[yungchris504]

I can't believe this really went 92 pages.

x(y-z) is just the x factored out.

x(y-z) = xy-xz

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by yankees1129

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. that does not apply here.

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

no, it isnt lol. it would be 12.

((4*5) -(4*2))
(20 -

12

I like your choice of answering only CERTAIN questions while overlooking the vast amount of reasonable proof i have presented and example problems that cearly show how equations should be evaluated.

because you can't even be debated with anymore

if you can't see that 36÷4(5-2)+6 has 3 seperate terms than i dont know what i can do for you

a  ÷ b +  c

36= a
4(5-2)=b
6= c

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by yankees1129

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. that does not apply here.

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

no, it isnt lol. it would be 12.

((4*5) -(4*2))
(20 -

12

I like your choice of answering only CERTAIN questions while overlooking the vast amount of reasonable proof i have presented and example problems that cearly show how equations should be evaluated.

because you can't even be debated with anymore

if you can't see that 36÷4(5-2)+6 has 3 seperate terms than i dont know what i can do for you

a  ÷ b +  c

36= a
4(5-2)=b
6= c

 

[yungchris504]

Originally Posted by yankees1129

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by yankees1129

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]that does not apply here.[/color]

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

Why wouldn't it apply? Did you make that up?

Can't you rewrite that as:

x(y+z)

x(y) + x(z)

That's the distributive property isn't it? What's the big deal?

where in PEMDAS do u see distributive property? seriously. it may work, but thats not the proper way to solve the equation.

4*(5-2) = 4 * 3 = 12

or

4(5 - 2) = (4*5) - (4*2) = 20 - 8 =12

I mean if you factor out 20 - 8 you get

2*(10 - 4) or 4 *(5-2)

y'all need to go back to algebra class or something

 

[yungchris504]

Originally Posted by yankees1129

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by yankees1129

yes. there are 4 separate terms. 4(5-2) are TWO separate terms
can team 2 please explain to me why x(y+z) is one term? where are u guys getting this? please do not say the distributive property. [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]that does not apply here.[/color]

what if i have the equation 4(5-2) = ?

is it unsolvable because it is one term?

the equation 4(5-2) =? is not the same as 28 = ?

Why wouldn't it apply? Did you make that up?

Can't you rewrite that as:

x(y+z)

x(y) + x(z)

That's the distributive property isn't it? What's the big deal?

where in PEMDAS do u see distributive property? seriously. it may work, but thats not the proper way to solve the equation.

4*(5-2) = 4 * 3 = 12

or

4(5 - 2) = (4*5) - (4*2) = 20 - 8 =12

I mean if you factor out 20 - 8 you get

2*(10 - 4) or 4 *(5-2)

y'all need to go back to algebra class or something

 

[Thats My Word]

Is mathway.com a credible website?