- 2,004
- 22
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
i have to screenshot this for future reference,
Team 288.
Team 288.
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
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
Where exactly did you read that the division symbol = fraction?Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Showing your solution on paper > Wolfram, Google and your fancy calculator combined.
288 is wrong because the original problem shows 2(9+3), NOT 48(9+3).
Numerator = Dividend
Denominator = Divisor
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
Where exactly did you read that the division symbol = fraction?Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Showing your solution on paper > Wolfram, Google and your fancy calculator combined.
288 is wrong because the original problem shows 2(9+3), NOT 48(9+3).
Numerator = Dividend
Denominator = Divisor
You're like a parrot. All you do is say the same things over and over again without making any sense.Originally Posted by snakeyes17
You can't even comprehend what has been said.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Show proof then.
That's right. You can't because what I stated is a fact.
You distribute 48 instead of 2? Worst explanation for 288.
Again, you should remove yourself from this conversation if you're only posting 288 because Wolfram Alpha, Google and your calculator gave you 288.
48 instead of 2? Uh, no.
Distribution is multiplying the inside times by the outside term. Why would you do that without performing division. You would distribute 24 to 9 and 24 to 3.
And on your paper? Why you throwing the 2(9+3) into the denominator? It isn't, or it would be (2(9+3)) or [2(9+3)].
Funny, you can get the same answer on paper, in a calculator, on Google, on Wolfram Alpha, and from credible sources.
Yet....where do you get 2 from? Improperly performing mathematical calculations? Making up rules? Restructuring the problem to your liking?
Using a website called myalgebra.com ?
You're like a parrot. All you do is say the same things over and over again without making any sense.Originally Posted by snakeyes17
You can't even comprehend what has been said.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Show proof then.
That's right. You can't because what I stated is a fact.
You distribute 48 instead of 2? Worst explanation for 288.
Again, you should remove yourself from this conversation if you're only posting 288 because Wolfram Alpha, Google and your calculator gave you 288.
48 instead of 2? Uh, no.
Distribution is multiplying the inside times by the outside term. Why would you do that without performing division. You would distribute 24 to 9 and 24 to 3.
And on your paper? Why you throwing the 2(9+3) into the denominator? It isn't, or it would be (2(9+3)) or [2(9+3)].
Funny, you can get the same answer on paper, in a calculator, on Google, on Wolfram Alpha, and from credible sources.
Yet....where do you get 2 from? Improperly performing mathematical calculations? Making up rules? Restructuring the problem to your liking?
Using a website called myalgebra.com ?
Yeah he offed himself with that one.Originally Posted by seasoned vet
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
Where exactly did you read that the division symbol = fraction?
Numerator = Dividend
Denominator = Divisor
.....DAMB. this plus the fact that usainboltisfast has been the LOUDEST 288 guy in here for pages says alot.
Yeah he offed himself with that one.Originally Posted by seasoned vet
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
Where exactly did you read that the division symbol = fraction?
Numerator = Dividend
Denominator = Divisor
.....DAMB. this plus the fact that usainboltisfast has been the LOUDEST 288 guy in here for pages says alot.
usainboltisfast wrote:
Where exactly did you read that the division symbol = fraction?
usainboltisfast wrote:
Where exactly did you read that the division symbol = fraction?
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Showing your solution on paper > Wolfram, Google and your fancy calculator combined.
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Showing your solution on paper > Wolfram, Google and your fancy calculator combined.
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Yeah he offed himself with that one.Originally Posted by seasoned vet
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Numerator = Dividend
Denominator = Divisor
.....DAMB. this plus the fact that usainboltisfast has been the LOUDEST 288 guy in here for pages says alot.
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Yeah he offed himself with that one.Originally Posted by seasoned vet
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Numerator = Dividend
Denominator = Divisor
.....DAMB. this plus the fact that usainboltisfast has been the LOUDEST 288 guy in here for pages says alot.
Are you telling me the note I posted is wrong?Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Showing your solution on paper > Wolfram, Google and your fancy calculator combined.
Equation reads:
[h3]48 ÷ 2 x (9+3)[/h3]
That then becomes...
[h3]48 ÷ 2 x 12[/h3]
It's that simple.
The only way to arrive at a conclusive answer of two is if the original equation were written as:
[h3]48 ÷ (2 x (9+3))[/h3]Because the above equation is specifically telling you that you cannot proceed, definitively, until you multiply the 2 by the product of 9 + 3.
Krux I specifically asked you this question back around the 50+ pages, and you conveniently disregarded it (), but I'll ask you again.
What's the mathematical difference between writing a (12) and 12? Is the bracketed 12 inherently different from the non-bracketed 12?
...
Are you telling me the note I posted is wrong?Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Showing your solution on paper > Wolfram, Google and your fancy calculator combined.
Equation reads:
[h3]48 ÷ 2 x (9+3)[/h3]
That then becomes...
[h3]48 ÷ 2 x 12[/h3]
It's that simple.
The only way to arrive at a conclusive answer of two is if the original equation were written as:
[h3]48 ÷ (2 x (9+3))[/h3]Because the above equation is specifically telling you that you cannot proceed, definitively, until you multiply the 2 by the product of 9 + 3.
Krux I specifically asked you this question back around the 50+ pages, and you conveniently disregarded it (), but I'll ask you again.
What's the mathematical difference between writing a (12) and 12? Is the bracketed 12 inherently different from the non-bracketed 12?
...
You're still at it? Should I quote you again from the last page?Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Yeah he offed himself with that one.Originally Posted by seasoned vet
.....DAMB. this plus the fact that usainboltisfast has been the LOUDEST 288 guy in here for pages says alot.
you guys are quick to twist peoples words into what ever pleases you guys no wonder why you continue manipulating the problem.
According to you team 2 members the division symbol creates implied parenthesis around 2 parts of the problem making this problem (4 / (2(9+3)) because the division symbol is "different" than / . I am asking you where did you see that rule at. I am asking for your source but of course you will not provide any source because you realized you were wrong about 40 pages ago but you still try to prove yourself right.
You're still at it? Should I quote you again from the last page?Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Yeah he offed himself with that one.Originally Posted by seasoned vet
.....DAMB. this plus the fact that usainboltisfast has been the LOUDEST 288 guy in here for pages says alot.
you guys are quick to twist peoples words into what ever pleases you guys no wonder why you continue manipulating the problem.
According to you team 2 members the division symbol creates implied parenthesis around 2 parts of the problem making this problem (4 / (2(9+3)) because the division symbol is "different" than / . I am asking you where did you see that rule at. I am asking for your source but of course you will not provide any source because you realized you were wrong about 40 pages ago but you still try to prove yourself right.
Originally Posted by Klipschorn
Originally Posted by Klipschorn