48÷2(9+3) = ???

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

All Team 2 has to argue is the Distributive Property, a rule that only applies to equations with variables.
We tried explaining the Order of Operations to them and they still don't get it.
We tried explaining the Distributive Property and they still don't get it.
After reasoning, they STILL try to argue the Distributive Property.
There's no getting to them.
laugh.gif
30t6p3b.gif
Click to expand...

are you saying 2(2-1) cant be distributed to get (4-2)?
Click to expand...

Technically it would be distributed to (4) - (2)

still waiting for your response to the examples i posted though...
Click to expand...
I've asked what examples twice now. What page you posted it on or just tell me which ones in the PDF
 
I'm a huge nerd, actually. Well. Maybe geek.

But once a thread on a math equation reaches 90 pages that's just something else
laugh.gif
 
I'm a huge nerd, actually. Well. Maybe geek.

But once a thread on a math equation reaches 90 pages that's just something else
laugh.gif
 
And the easiest way to look at the above problem is to do it old school


48 / 2(9+3) is also



48
----------
2(9+3)




and another mistake you guys are making is if you divide the 2 by 48 you also must divide the (9+3) by 48 as well. Yall need some Differential Equations in yall lives.
 
And the easiest way to look at the above problem is to do it old school


48 / 2(9+3) is also



48
----------
2(9+3)




and another mistake you guys are making is if you divide the 2 by 48 you also must divide the (9+3) by 48 as well. Yall need some Differential Equations in yall lives.
 
Turning the equation into a fraction would change it into a completely different equation altogether.
I will admit if the equation is a fraction, the answer would be 2. But as is? 288.
 
Turning the equation into a fraction would change it into a completely different equation altogether.
I will admit if the equation is a fraction, the answer would be 2. But as is? 288.
 
Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

All Team 2 has to argue is the Distributive Property, a rule that only applies to equations with variables.
We tried explaining the Order of Operations to them and they still don't get it.
We tried explaining the Distributive Property and they still don't get it.
After reasoning, they STILL try to argue the Distributive Property.
There's no getting to them.
laugh.gif
30t6p3b.gif
Click to expand...

are you saying 2(2-1) cant be distributed to get (4-2)?
Click to expand...
Son, just stop. I shut down that "example" you tried to show that proved you were right (which you aren't the example only helped prove that the answer is 288).
Go take a seat.

And like someone mentioned earlier, team 2:

aae161487c05e99889111c5c4b4a27c7796bc66a.jpg
 
Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

All Team 2 has to argue is the Distributive Property, a rule that only applies to equations with variables.
We tried explaining the Order of Operations to them and they still don't get it.
We tried explaining the Distributive Property and they still don't get it.
After reasoning, they STILL try to argue the Distributive Property.
There's no getting to them.
laugh.gif
30t6p3b.gif
Click to expand...

are you saying 2(2-1) cant be distributed to get (4-2)?
Click to expand...
Son, just stop. I shut down that "example" you tried to show that proved you were right (which you aren't the example only helped prove that the answer is 288).
Go take a seat.

And like someone mentioned earlier, team 2:

aae161487c05e99889111c5c4b4a27c7796bc66a.jpg
 
Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

Turning the equation into a fraction would change it into a completely different equation altogether.
I will admit if the equation is a fraction, the answer would be 2. But as is? 288.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Clearly the author knows how to use parenthesis, if they wanted to indicate THAT fraction all they had to do is add a parenthesis before the 2 and after the end parenthesis.
 
Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

Turning the equation into a fraction would change it into a completely different equation altogether.
I will admit if the equation is a fraction, the answer would be 2. But as is? 288.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Clearly the author knows how to use parenthesis, if they wanted to indicate THAT fraction all they had to do is add a parenthesis before the 2 and after the end parenthesis.
 
Originally Posted by yungchris504

And the easiest way to look at the above problem is to do it old school


48 / 2(9+3) is also



48
----------
2(9+3)




and another mistake you guys are making is if you divide the 2 by 48 you also must divide the (9+3) by 48 as well. Yall need some Differential Equations in yall lives.
Click to expand...
taocjp.gif
 
Originally Posted by yungchris504

And the easiest way to look at the above problem is to do it old school


48 / 2(9+3) is also



48
----------
2(9+3)




and another mistake you guys are making is if you divide the 2 by 48 you also must divide the (9+3) by 48 as well. Yall need some Differential Equations in yall lives.
Click to expand...
taocjp.gif
 
what in the world is going on in here.

the answer is 2 ONLY if it was written 48/[2(9+3)]... you can't just assume that.

I am in engineering, i asked a few buddies i go to school with and they all said 288 as well. I asked them "if it isn't stated, do you assume the (9+3) is in the denominator?" and they all said "no" and i agree with them.

48/2*12 and you solve it left to right
 
what in the world is going on in here.

the answer is 2 ONLY if it was written 48/[2(9+3)]... you can't just assume that.

I am in engineering, i asked a few buddies i go to school with and they all said 288 as well. I asked them "if it isn't stated, do you assume the (9+3) is in the denominator?" and they all said "no" and i agree with them.

48/2*12 and you solve it left to right
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

| Xenforo Add-ons © by ©XenTR | Media embeds via s9e/MediaSites
Back
Top Bottom