- Nov 18, 2007
- 28,107
- 9,249
AGAIN 2 PEOPLE......do you agree with this?
1-1+1= -1
1-1+1= -1
48÷2(9+3) = ???
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by n1k3b4ller,
- Start date
- Jun 24, 2002
- 9,655
- 123
I got 288, but then again, I'm turrible at math. So, I'll take the '2' camp's word for it
A math problem hitting 30+ pages on NT. Who woulda thunk?
A math problem hitting 30+ pages on NT. Who woulda thunk?
- Jun 24, 2002
- 9,655
- 123
I got 288, but then again, I'm turrible at math. So, I'll take the '2' camp's word for it
A math problem hitting 30+ pages on NT. Who woulda thunk?
A math problem hitting 30+ pages on NT. Who woulda thunk?
kingcrux31
Staff member
- Feb 3, 2002
- 7,360
- 1,031
There's a reason why people posting here have been ignoring your question. It's totally irrelevant to the original equation. It's not even similar. If that's your blueprint for every Math equation then you should really stop participating in this thread.
kingcrux31
Staff member
- Feb 3, 2002
- 7,360
- 1,031
There's a reason why people posting here have been ignoring your question. It's totally irrelevant to the original equation. It's not even similar. If that's your blueprint for every Math equation then you should really stop participating in this thread.
- Mar 1, 2007
- 2,752
- 142
no one is saying that multiplication comes before division like you're insinuating
- Mar 1, 2007
- 2,752
- 142
no one is saying that multiplication comes before division like you're insinuating
- Oct 5, 2010
- 1,826
- 10
You applied it the wrong way.
Because i don't have a parenthetical symbol around 18 and 6. Read the bolded red above.
When you apply the distributive property, after the fact, the parenthesis vanishes because there's no need for them anymore. You've distributed into the function so what's the purpose of still having them.
Point is, using the Dis.property yields 2 different answers:
2 if you keep the parenthesis (which you are not supposed to, anyway)
and
8.666 if you lose the parenthesis.
The fact that you have 2 different answers using the same process is evidence that the process is FLAWED.
...
- Oct 5, 2010
- 1,826
- 10
You applied it the wrong way.
Because i don't have a parenthetical symbol around 18 and 6. Read the bolded red above.
When you apply the distributive property, after the fact, the parenthesis vanishes because there's no need for them anymore. You've distributed into the function so what's the purpose of still having them.
Point is, using the Dis.property yields 2 different answers:
2 if you keep the parenthesis (which you are not supposed to, anyway)
and
8.666 if you lose the parenthesis.
The fact that you have 2 different answers using the same process is evidence that the process is FLAWED.
...
- Jan 4, 2008
- 2,649
- 512
This question is ridiculous and not relevant to the problem. In fact, it helps our problem. You solve this problem left to right, which will give you +1. 1 minus one is 0. Then you add 1 and you get +1. Now, if you were to add the two 1s together, then subtract the 1, you STILL get +1. This has nothing to do with the problem at hand. I honestly just don't know where you're going with this. I see no parentheses at all in this. Where are you trying to go with this?
rocky437
Banned
- Sep 17, 2008
- 1,297
- 82
What in the blue hell are you doing? The answer to that is 1. Positive 1. This answer is 2.
- Jan 4, 2008
- 2,649
- 512
This question is ridiculous and not relevant to the problem. In fact, it helps our problem. You solve this problem left to right, which will give you +1. 1 minus one is 0. Then you add 1 and you get +1. Now, if you were to add the two 1s together, then subtract the 1, you STILL get +1. This has nothing to do with the problem at hand. I honestly just don't know where you're going with this. I see no parentheses at all in this. Where are you trying to go with this?
rocky437
Banned
- Sep 17, 2008
- 1,297
- 82
What in the blue hell are you doing? The answer to that is 1. Positive 1. This answer is 2.
- Apr 30, 2010
- 69,664
- 106,293
Smh yuku. But even though i had both answers, i'm sticking with the two. At the point where it's 48/2(12) and you change it to 48/2*12, it's as if you start the equation by changing the parenthesis to a product, leaving it half finished to tend to another part of the problem, then coming back to the equation which doesn't seem to flow as well as a math problem should.
- Apr 30, 2010
- 69,664
- 106,293
Smh yuku. But even though i had both answers, i'm sticking with the two. At the point where it's 48/2(12) and you change it to 48/2*12, it's as if you start the equation by changing the parenthesis to a product, leaving it half finished to tend to another part of the problem, then coming back to the equation which doesn't seem to flow as well as a math problem should.
- Jan 7, 2003
- 13,673
- 11,708
I'm no math wiz, however, I see a lot of individuals complete the parenthesis which gives them:
48/2(12)
Then, they proceed to say go from left to right but, would'nt that be incorrect? How can you solve the arithmetic on the right side of the equation (2, 9 and 3) and get 2 x 12, invert the equation and start dividing the 48 by 2 when you started from the right initially? Like I said, Im no math maestro but, can you go from right to left (Solve the initial portion with parenthesis) then, proceed to go in reverse and go from left to right to complete the equation? Im curious.
48/2(12)
Then, they proceed to say go from left to right but, would'nt that be incorrect? How can you solve the arithmetic on the right side of the equation (2, 9 and 3) and get 2 x 12, invert the equation and start dividing the 48 by 2 when you started from the right initially? Like I said, Im no math maestro but, can you go from right to left (Solve the initial portion with parenthesis) then, proceed to go in reverse and go from left to right to complete the equation? Im curious.
- Jan 7, 2003
- 13,673
- 11,708
I'm no math wiz, however, I see a lot of individuals complete the parenthesis which gives them:
48/2(12)
Then, they proceed to say go from left to right but, would'nt that be incorrect? How can you solve the arithmetic on the right side of the equation (2, 9 and 3) and get 2 x 12, invert the equation and start dividing the 48 by 2 when you started from the right initially? Like I said, Im no math maestro but, can you go from right to left (Solve the initial portion with parenthesis) then, proceed to go in reverse and go from left to right to complete the equation? Im curious.
48/2(12)
Then, they proceed to say go from left to right but, would'nt that be incorrect? How can you solve the arithmetic on the right side of the equation (2, 9 and 3) and get 2 x 12, invert the equation and start dividing the 48 by 2 when you started from the right initially? Like I said, Im no math maestro but, can you go from right to left (Solve the initial portion with parenthesis) then, proceed to go in reverse and go from left to right to complete the equation? Im curious.
- Sep 5, 2003
- 4,407
- 11
I thought whenever you solve a distributive property within an equation you seal it within a parenthesis so...
48÷2(9+3) -> 48÷((2x9)+(2x3)) -> 48÷(18+6) -> 48÷(24) -> 2
*shrug*
48÷2(9+3) -> 48÷((2x9)+(2x3)) -> 48÷(18+6) -> 48÷(24) -> 2
*shrug*
- Sep 5, 2003
- 4,407
- 11
I thought whenever you solve a distributive property within an equation you seal it within a parenthesis so...
48÷2(9+3) -> 48÷((2x9)+(2x3)) -> 48÷(18+6) -> 48÷(24) -> 2
*shrug*
48÷2(9+3) -> 48÷((2x9)+(2x3)) -> 48÷(18+6) -> 48÷(24) -> 2
*shrug*
kingcrux31
Staff member
- Feb 3, 2002
- 7,360
- 1,031
[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]"even when we can't add the[/color]
Code:
terms inside them."
Code:
Code:
But you can and you should have before multiplying them by 2.
Code:
Code:
Code:
kingcrux31
Staff member
- Feb 3, 2002
- 7,360
- 1,031
[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]"even when we can't add the[/color]
Code:
terms inside them."
Code:
Code:
But you can and you should have before multiplying them by 2.
Code:
Code:
Code:
- Jan 4, 2008
- 2,649
- 512
Your use of the Distributive Property is flawed. You didn't add the 9 and the 3, thereby violating the order of operations. You would distribute if the numbers in the parentheses were something like (9+3x), because the 9 and the 3x cannot be added because of the variable. In our case, we have no variables, so the 9 and the 3 must be added first.
- Jan 4, 2008
- 2,649
- 512
Your use of the Distributive Property is flawed. You didn't add the 9 and the 3, thereby violating the order of operations. You would distribute if the numbers in the parentheses were something like (9+3x), because the 9 and the 3x cannot be added because of the variable. In our case, we have no variables, so the 9 and the 3 must be added first.
- Apr 4, 2007
- 11,513
- 51
Everyone saying 2 are a buncha idiots.
- Apr 4, 2007
- 11,513
- 51
Everyone saying 2 are a buncha idiots.
