- 3,080
- 368
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
Cut your nails recently?Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Cut your nails recently?Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Can we please at least disregard whatever this guy says? I'm sure no one agrees with him.Originally Posted by ncmalko1
Ohh wait. The answer is 2!
2(9+3) MUST BE FACTORED FIRST IN ITS ENTIRITY.
Can we please at least disregard whatever this guy says? I'm sure no one agrees with him.Originally Posted by ncmalko1
Ohh wait. The answer is 2!
2(9+3) MUST BE FACTORED FIRST IN ITS ENTIRITY.
Originally Posted by ElCatfisho
Cut your nails recently?Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by ElCatfisho
Cut your nails recently?Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by durty pancakes
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Not mine BUT YOU LOSE since you're only after seeing a calculator with this answer.Originally Posted by durty pancakes
Figures.
You'll go as far as posting up 4 different handwritten notes but won't take a mere 7 seconds to input a simple calculation into your calculator.
Admit defeat.
Like I said, stick with team 288.
Why not yours?
Something wrong with yours? Is it because it's not a Casio? Is it because the answer that will consistently show up is 288?
Oh and btw,
usainboltisfast wrote:
This order is generally clear and unambiguous but problems do occur. One problem is a bug in Casio calculators made before 2007. For example, the expressionshould evaluate to 16 according to the order of operations. The division should be done first. It is evaluated incorrectly to 1 by earlier Casio calculators. If you instead enterthe Casio will give the correct answer. TI calculators do not have this problem. Casio has fixed this problem in newer calculators.
http://www.imperial.edu/~...es/impliedgroupings.html
That Casio up there is defected.
Originally Posted by durty pancakes
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Not mine BUT YOU LOSE since you're only after seeing a calculator with this answer.Originally Posted by durty pancakes
Figures.
You'll go as far as posting up 4 different handwritten notes but won't take a mere 7 seconds to input a simple calculation into your calculator.
Admit defeat.
Like I said, stick with team 288.
Why not yours?
Something wrong with yours? Is it because it's not a Casio? Is it because the answer that will consistently show up is 288?
Oh and btw,
usainboltisfast wrote:
This order is generally clear and unambiguous but problems do occur. One problem is a bug in Casio calculators made before 2007. For example, the expressionshould evaluate to 16 according to the order of operations. The division should be done first. It is evaluated incorrectly to 1 by earlier Casio calculators. If you instead enterthe Casio will give the correct answer. TI calculators do not have this problem. Casio has fixed this problem in newer calculators.
http://www.imperial.edu/~...es/impliedgroupings.html
That Casio up there is defected.
It says 48÷2(9+3). Let's keep looking at the original problem like you keep on saying. You get 288 by not putting a crown on 2(9+3). Don't fall into the hype of the parenthesis. It ain't special and doesn't get to cut to the front of the line for the Order of Operations pack release.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Simple. Does the original problem say 48(9+3) or 2(9+3)?Originally Posted by inspectah derek
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Did I say otherwise? It's you who can't read a simple math problem properly. Again, the only way you're gonna get 288 is if 48(9+3)÷2 but the OG problem is [h3]48÷2(9+3) [/h3]
Everyone is getting 288 by looking at the original problem and following the order of operations and not assuming that 2(9+3) is a special grouping for some random reason. The (9+3) can, in fact, be seen either as a number multiplied by the result of 48÷2. We are applying basic math rules, and considering the division sign as a simple division between the two numbers around it. Nothing strange, and nothing worth explaining. It's simply correct. Argue that.
It says 48÷2(9+3). Let's keep looking at the original problem like you keep on saying. You get 288 by not putting a crown on 2(9+3). Don't fall into the hype of the parenthesis. It ain't special and doesn't get to cut to the front of the line for the Order of Operations pack release.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Simple. Does the original problem say 48(9+3) or 2(9+3)?Originally Posted by inspectah derek
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Did I say otherwise? It's you who can't read a simple math problem properly. Again, the only way you're gonna get 288 is if 48(9+3)÷2 but the OG problem is [h3]48÷2(9+3) [/h3]
Everyone is getting 288 by looking at the original problem and following the order of operations and not assuming that 2(9+3) is a special grouping for some random reason. The (9+3) can, in fact, be seen either as a number multiplied by the result of 48÷2. We are applying basic math rules, and considering the division sign as a simple division between the two numbers around it. Nothing strange, and nothing worth explaining. It's simply correct. Argue that.
Okay.Originally Posted by inspectah derek
Don't fall into the hype of the parenthesis.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Simple. Does the original problem say 48(9+3) or 2(9+3)?Originally Posted by inspectah derek
Everyone is getting 288 by looking at the original problem and following the order of operations and not assuming that 2(9+3) is a special grouping for some random reason. The (9+3) can, in fact, be seen either as a number multiplied by the result of 48÷2. We are applying basic math rules, and considering the division sign as a simple division between the two numbers around it. Nothing strange, and nothing worth explaining. It's simply correct. Argue that.
Okay.Originally Posted by inspectah derek
Don't fall into the hype of the parenthesis.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Simple. Does the original problem say 48(9+3) or 2(9+3)?Originally Posted by inspectah derek
Everyone is getting 288 by looking at the original problem and following the order of operations and not assuming that 2(9+3) is a special grouping for some random reason. The (9+3) can, in fact, be seen either as a number multiplied by the result of 48÷2. We are applying basic math rules, and considering the division sign as a simple division between the two numbers around it. Nothing strange, and nothing worth explaining. It's simply correct. Argue that.
Originally Posted by ljlukelj
I still don't understand team 2. It isn't please excuse distribution my dear aunt sally
Originally Posted by ljlukelj
I still don't understand team 2. It isn't please excuse distribution my dear aunt sally
Originally Posted by ljlukelj
I still don't understand team 2. It isn't please excuse distribution my dear aunt sally
Originally Posted by ljlukelj
I still don't understand team 2. It isn't please excuse distribution my dear aunt sally
Originally Posted by BC2310
Originally Posted by ljlukelj
I still don't understand team 2. It isn't please excuse distribution my dear aunt sally
I understand both sides. I'm team 2.
÷ vs / is the problem.
BC2310 wrote:
From MYALGEBRA.com
48÷2(9+3)
Simplify:
Answer:
2
48/2(9+3)
Simplify:
Answer:
288
Originally Posted by BC2310
Originally Posted by ljlukelj
I still don't understand team 2. It isn't please excuse distribution my dear aunt sally
I understand both sides. I'm team 2.
÷ vs / is the problem.
BC2310 wrote:
From MYALGEBRA.com
48÷2(9+3)
Simplify:
Answer:
2
48/2(9+3)
Simplify:
Answer:
288
Originally Posted by ElCatfisho
Can we please at least disregard whatever this guy says? I'm sure no one agrees with him.Originally Posted by ncmalko1
Ohh wait. The answer is 2!
2(9+3) MUST BE FACTORED FIRST IN ITS ENTIRITY.
Even if you do factor 2(9+3) you get 18 + 6. Then you divide 48 by 18, which I'm sure everyone has ruled out that 8.6 is not the answer.
Originally Posted by ElCatfisho
Can we please at least disregard whatever this guy says? I'm sure no one agrees with him.Originally Posted by ncmalko1
Ohh wait. The answer is 2!
2(9+3) MUST BE FACTORED FIRST IN ITS ENTIRITY.
Even if you do factor 2(9+3) you get 18 + 6. Then you divide 48 by 18, which I'm sure everyone has ruled out that 8.6 is not the answer.
Originally Posted by ElCatfisho
Even if you do factor 2(9+3) you get 18 + 6. Then you divide 48 by 18, which I'm sure everyone has ruled out that 8.6 is not the answer.Originally Posted by ncmalko1
Ohh wait. The answer is 2!
2(9+3) MUST BE FACTORED FIRST IN ITS ENTIRITY.