48÷2(9+3) = ???

[usainboltisfast]

Some *snip* believe that / means a fraction? No *snip* the slash is short hand for division. Learn a programming language and say other wise

Edit: warned for name calling

 

[bachelor frog]

That would be correct if you were going strictly off of order of operations, but there is an association between 2 and (9+3).
You have to do them together as I tried to explain above

When you look at the algebraic expression using 2x you do not split 2 and x up in this equation, 2(9+3) is the same way. The parenthesis draw the same association.

Can you post link that confirm that it is true ? ... I am 100% sure you can't because no such thing exists. And following your theory, if there was 48 * 2(9+3) will it be imposible to split the 2 and write it 2 * 48(9+3) ? Because it should be imposible ...

 

[bachelor frog]

That would be correct if you were going strictly off of order of operations, but there is an association between 2 and (9+3).
You have to do them together as I tried to explain above

When you look at the algebraic expression using 2x you do not split 2 and x up in this equation, 2(9+3) is the same way. The parenthesis draw the same association.

Can you post link that confirm that it is true ? ... I am 100% sure you can't because no such thing exists. And following your theory, if there was 48 * 2(9+3) will it be imposible to split the 2 and write it 2 * 48(9+3) ? Because it should be imposible ...

 

[kaws]

Is it that serious doe.

 

[kaws]

Is it that serious doe.

 

[usainboltisfast]

For the 2 believers what's the answer to this:

A/bc

How would you solve that?

 

[usainboltisfast]

For the 2 believers what's the answer to this:

A/bc

How would you solve that?

 

[Mark Antony]

The end of the day though, it's too ambiguous, no math teacher is going to format a problem like that and give it to you.

 

[Mark Antony]

The end of the day though, it's too ambiguous, no math teacher is going to format a problem like that and give it to you.

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by Bachelor frog

That would be correct if you were going strictly off of order of operations, but there is an association between 2 and (9+3).
You have to do them together as I tried to explain above

When you look at the algebraic expression using 2x you do not split 2 and x up in this equation, 2(9+3) is the same way. The parenthesis draw the same association.

Can you post link that confirm that it is true ? ... I am 100% sure you can't because no such thing exists. And following your theory, if there was 48 * 2(9+3) will it be imposible to split the 2 and write it 2 * 48(9+3) ? Because it should be imposible ...

You could flip it from 48 * 2(9+3) to 2(9+3) * 48,
but the 48 and the 2 are NOT interchangeable.
It's something you'd know if you were taught correctly, but I'm not going to drag myself through the DEEP WEB to find confirmation.
You don't have to believe me, but ask a math professor.

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by Bachelor frog

That would be correct if you were going strictly off of order of operations, but there is an association between 2 and (9+3).
You have to do them together as I tried to explain above

When you look at the algebraic expression using 2x you do not split 2 and x up in this equation, 2(9+3) is the same way. The parenthesis draw the same association.

Can you post link that confirm that it is true ? ... I am 100% sure you can't because no such thing exists. And following your theory, if there was 48 * 2(9+3) will it be imposible to split the 2 and write it 2 * 48(9+3) ? Because it should be imposible ...

You could flip it from 48 * 2(9+3) to 2(9+3) * 48,
but the 48 and the 2 are NOT interchangeable.
It's something you'd know if you were taught correctly, but I'm not going to drag myself through the DEEP WEB to find confirmation.
You don't have to believe me, but ask a math professor.

 

[ruxxx]

WOW.

 

[ruxxx]

WOW.

 

[jthagreat]

So is there gonna be some Yale/Harvard/MIT professor who is gonna Solve all this? I imagine this will be on Yahoo's front page soon...

 

[jthagreat]

So is there gonna be some Yale/Harvard/MIT professor who is gonna Solve all this? I imagine this will be on Yahoo's front page soon...

 

[curiousgeorg3]

GRyPR33 wrote:

---

[h3]48 ÷ 2x =
[/h3]48
2x



this is wrong
48/2x =/= 48/(2x)

48/2x = 48x/2

trust me, Im an engineering major

 

[curiousgeorg3]

GRyPR33 wrote:

---

[h3]48 ÷ 2x =
[/h3]48
2x



this is wrong
48/2x =/= 48/(2x)

48/2x = 48x/2

trust me, Im an engineering major

 

[pacmagic2002]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Some idiots believe that / means a fraction? No you idiots the slash is short hand for division. Learn a programming language and say other wise

Believe me, the problem here is what happens with 2(9+3) and if you multiply this first because of the parenthesis or divide because of the left to right rule (after the numbers INSIDE the parenthesis is solved)

 

[pacmagic2002]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Some idiots believe that / means a fraction? No you idiots the slash is short hand for division. Learn a programming language and say other wise

Believe me, the problem here is what happens with 2(9+3) and if you multiply this first because of the parenthesis or divide because of the left to right rule (after the numbers INSIDE the parenthesis is solved)

 

[36Hypno]

Seriously though?

 

[36Hypno]

Seriously though?

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by pacmagic2002

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Some idiots believe that / means a fraction? No you idiots the slash is short hand for division. Learn a programming language and say other wise

Believe me, the problem here is what happens with 2(9+3) and if you multiply this first because of the parenthesis or divide because of the left to right rule (after the numbers INSIDE the parenthesis is solved)

There is no such thing as multiplication by juxtaposition. Google it and you will only notice it is ONLY talked about when in discussion of this equation. Multiplication by juxtaposition even if it would exist would still be covered under MULTIPLICATION under order of operation. Juxtaposition holds no weight. Peep this example

a/bc

b and c are clearly next to each other but you would still do the division first. The parenthesis is only in there to tell you guys to do 9 + 3 first after that it is all fair game.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by pacmagic2002

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Some idiots believe that / means a fraction? No you idiots the slash is short hand for division. Learn a programming language and say other wise

Believe me, the problem here is what happens with 2(9+3) and if you multiply this first because of the parenthesis or divide because of the left to right rule (after the numbers INSIDE the parenthesis is solved)

There is no such thing as multiplication by juxtaposition. Google it and you will only notice it is ONLY talked about when in discussion of this equation. Multiplication by juxtaposition even if it would exist would still be covered under MULTIPLICATION under order of operation. Juxtaposition holds no weight. Peep this example

a/bc

b and c are clearly next to each other but you would still do the division first. The parenthesis is only in there to tell you guys to do 9 + 3 first after that it is all fair game.

 

[unkletomcruze]

Yooooo...this is still going...

...

SMH at Holden saying the answer is 2...

I KNOW Meth will come up with 288 as the answer...

...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Yooooo...this is still going...

...

SMH at Holden saying the answer is 2...

I KNOW Meth will come up with 288 as the answer...

...