- 1,254
- 11
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
balloonoboy, youre just embarrassing yourself now.
whats the highest level math class youve taken/passed?
whats the highest level math class youve taken/passed?
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
no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?Originally Posted by do work son
Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
Arent you the same dude who asked Danica McKellar? She already gave someone the answerOriginally Posted by do work son
48÷2(9+3)
this is clearly a division problem, but team 288 is trying to make it (48/2)*(9+3)
why do you think there is no multiplication sign in the problem, and the only one you get is the one you implied?
if the answer were to be 288, the problem would have to be written as 48÷2*(9+3) = or (48/2)*(9+3)....but it's not
it's written 48÷2(9+3). the division sign is what is used to find your numerator and denominator . if there was a multiplication between the 2 and (9+3) you would then multiply 48÷2 and (9+3). but there isn't.
numerator= 48
denominator= 2(9+3)
simplify both terms, and then do the division as stated in the og problem
@crossurfingers A computer would say the answer is 288, which is technically the best answer, since order of op says do multi & div L to R.
Anyways to respond to what you are saying multiplication is implied by juxtaposition which is why you dont need the symbol. If 48 was supposed to be dividing into the rest of it wouldnt you agree the problem should have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to avoid such confusion? According to your theory in a situation like this (lets use variabes) ab is one term and not a*b. It is clear though that there are 3 separate terms in this problem 48, 2, and (9+3)
no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?Originally Posted by do work son
Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
Arent you the same dude who asked Danica McKellar? She already gave someone the answerOriginally Posted by do work son
48÷2(9+3)
this is clearly a division problem, but team 288 is trying to make it (48/2)*(9+3)
why do you think there is no multiplication sign in the problem, and the only one you get is the one you implied?
if the answer were to be 288, the problem would have to be written as 48÷2*(9+3) = or (48/2)*(9+3)....but it's not
it's written 48÷2(9+3). the division sign is what is used to find your numerator and denominator . if there was a multiplication between the 2 and (9+3) you would then multiply 48÷2 and (9+3). but there isn't.
numerator= 48
denominator= 2(9+3)
simplify both terms, and then do the division as stated in the og problem
@crossurfingers A computer would say the answer is 288, which is technically the best answer, since order of op says do multi & div L to R.
Anyways to respond to what you are saying multiplication is implied by juxtaposition which is why you dont need the symbol. If 48 was supposed to be dividing into the rest of it wouldnt you agree the problem should have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to avoid such confusion? According to your theory in a situation like this (lets use variabes) ab is one term and not a*b. It is clear though that there are 3 separate terms in this problem 48, 2, and (9+3)
Originally Posted by balloonoboy
@ anyone who thinks 2(9+3)=2x1(9+3)
Seriously. You were either asleep in algebra or are 12.
Originally Posted by balloonoboy
@ anyone who thinks 2(9+3)=2x1(9+3)
Seriously. You were either asleep in algebra or are 12.
We multiplication sign isnt needed. Like I said before are you saying ab is one term and not a*b? I never said Juxtaposition by multiplication isnt true it is very true. What I was aruging against was if it held more weight in order of operations then division. Many people argued that multiplication by juxaposition and even multiplication period came before division. The problem with that is that is just simply not true. Any source about order of operations clearly states division and multiplication are at the same level, which means you go across the equation from left and right. The only way to for multiplication to be done before division is IF and ONLY IF a parenthesis is around that whole thing. You would need to indicate (2(9+3)) to override the normal order of operations. The 2 terms are ONLY conjoined to state multiplication because that is the ONLY thing conjoined terms mean. Anyone who has said otherwise can not find sources to state that or even example problems showing that. There has been a total of 1 site to put juxtaposition before division and even they said it they were not sure about it.Originally Posted by do work son
Originally Posted by do work son
no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
Arent you the same dude who asked Danica McKellar? She already gave someone the answer
Anyways to respond to what you are saying multiplication is implied by juxtaposition which is why you dont need the symbol. If 48 was supposed to be dividing into the rest of it wouldnt you agree the problem should have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to avoid such confusion? According to your theory in a situation like this (lets use variabes) ab is one term and not a*b. It is clear though that there are 3 separate terms in this problem 48, 2, and (9+3)
i agree it could have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to make it more clear, but as it stands there still isn't a multiplication sign between 2 and (9+3). although we all eventually imply that it's multiplication, there is a reason it isn't in the problem. the reason is to keep 2 and (9+3) grouped together, telling you have to fully simplify that term before you can do the division. you cant say 2 is it's own term because it isn't free standing. if the problem read 48÷2*(9+3) then i would agree there are 3 terms and not just 2
can someone respond to this?
We multiplication sign isnt needed. Like I said before are you saying ab is one term and not a*b? I never said Juxtaposition by multiplication isnt true it is very true. What I was aruging against was if it held more weight in order of operations then division. Many people argued that multiplication by juxaposition and even multiplication period came before division. The problem with that is that is just simply not true. Any source about order of operations clearly states division and multiplication are at the same level, which means you go across the equation from left and right. The only way to for multiplication to be done before division is IF and ONLY IF a parenthesis is around that whole thing. You would need to indicate (2(9+3)) to override the normal order of operations. The 2 terms are ONLY conjoined to state multiplication because that is the ONLY thing conjoined terms mean. Anyone who has said otherwise can not find sources to state that or even example problems showing that. There has been a total of 1 site to put juxtaposition before division and even they said it they were not sure about it.Originally Posted by do work son
Originally Posted by do work son
no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
Arent you the same dude who asked Danica McKellar? She already gave someone the answer
Anyways to respond to what you are saying multiplication is implied by juxtaposition which is why you dont need the symbol. If 48 was supposed to be dividing into the rest of it wouldnt you agree the problem should have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to avoid such confusion? According to your theory in a situation like this (lets use variabes) ab is one term and not a*b. It is clear though that there are 3 separate terms in this problem 48, 2, and (9+3)
i agree it could have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to make it more clear, but as it stands there still isn't a multiplication sign between 2 and (9+3). although we all eventually imply that it's multiplication, there is a reason it isn't in the problem. the reason is to keep 2 and (9+3) grouped together, telling you have to fully simplify that term before you can do the division. you cant say 2 is it's own term because it isn't free standing. if the problem read 48÷2*(9+3) then i would agree there are 3 terms and not just 2
can someone respond to this?
Originally Posted by WallyHopp
Is no one really just teetering in the middle here? I said it back on Friday that the question is just a mess to begin with.. To have a stance so strong for either side is highly questionable.. That's why most of these threads were locked after 2 days. NT's thread may be the longest running one.
Originally Posted by WallyHopp
Is no one really just teetering in the middle here? I said it back on Friday that the question is just a mess to begin with.. To have a stance so strong for either side is highly questionable.. That's why most of these threads were locked after 2 days. NT's thread may be the longest running one.
yes, ab= a*b, but x÷ab =/= x÷a*bOriginally Posted by usainboltisfast
We multiplication sign isnt needed. Like I said before are you saying ab is one term and not a*b? I never said Juxtaposition by multiplication isnt true it is very true. What I was aruging against was if it held more weight in order of operations then division. Many people argued that multiplication by juxaposition and even multiplication period came before division. The problem with that is that is just simply not true. Any source about order of operations clearly states division and multiplication are at the same level, which means you go across the equation from left and right. The only way to for multiplication to be done before division is IF and ONLY IF a parenthesis is around that whole thing. You would need to indicate (2(9+3)) to override the normal order of operations. The 2 terms are ONLY conjoined to state multiplication because that is the ONLY thing conjoined terms mean. Anyone who has said otherwise can not find sources to state that or even example problems showing that. There has been a total of 1 site to put juxtaposition before division and even they said it they were not sure about it.Originally Posted by do work son
Originally Posted by do work son
no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?
i agree it could have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to make it more clear, but as it stands there still isn't a multiplication sign between 2 and (9+3). although we all eventually imply that it's multiplication, there is a reason it isn't in the problem. the reason is to keep 2 and (9+3) grouped together, telling you have to fully simplify that term before you can do the division. you cant say 2 is it's own term because it isn't free standing. if the problem read 48÷2*(9+3) then i would agree there are 3 terms and not just 2
can someone respond to this?
yes, ab= a*b, but x÷ab =/= x÷a*bOriginally Posted by usainboltisfast
We multiplication sign isnt needed. Like I said before are you saying ab is one term and not a*b? I never said Juxtaposition by multiplication isnt true it is very true. What I was aruging against was if it held more weight in order of operations then division. Many people argued that multiplication by juxaposition and even multiplication period came before division. The problem with that is that is just simply not true. Any source about order of operations clearly states division and multiplication are at the same level, which means you go across the equation from left and right. The only way to for multiplication to be done before division is IF and ONLY IF a parenthesis is around that whole thing. You would need to indicate (2(9+3)) to override the normal order of operations. The 2 terms are ONLY conjoined to state multiplication because that is the ONLY thing conjoined terms mean. Anyone who has said otherwise can not find sources to state that or even example problems showing that. There has been a total of 1 site to put juxtaposition before division and even they said it they were not sure about it.Originally Posted by do work son
Originally Posted by do work son
no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?
i agree it could have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to make it more clear, but as it stands there still isn't a multiplication sign between 2 and (9+3). although we all eventually imply that it's multiplication, there is a reason it isn't in the problem. the reason is to keep 2 and (9+3) grouped together, telling you have to fully simplify that term before you can do the division. you cant say 2 is it's own term because it isn't free standing. if the problem read 48÷2*(9+3) then i would agree there are 3 terms and not just 2
can someone respond to this?
thanks for adding nothing to the thread...read first next timeOriginally Posted by Nickthestick91
I haven't read any of this thread but in my opinion, the answer depends on how the equation is written. Here's a pic:
thanks for adding nothing to the thread...read first next timeOriginally Posted by Nickthestick91
I haven't read any of this thread but in my opinion, the answer depends on how the equation is written. Here's a pic:
Originally Posted by balloonoboy
they may equal the same numerical value, but there is a difference. Mainly, the 1 is juxtaposed to the parenthetical in 2x1(9+3). The 2 isn't.
Originally Posted by balloonoboy
they may equal the same numerical value, but there is a difference. Mainly, the 1 is juxtaposed to the parenthetical in 2x1(9+3). The 2 isn't.
Originally Posted by Nickthestick91
I haven't read any of this thread but in my opinion, the answer depends on how the equation is written. Here's a pic: