48÷2(9+3) = ???

[jfmartimcdandruff]

somebody needs to sacrifice their NT account and get this thread locked

 

[jfmartimcdandruff]

somebody needs to sacrifice their NT account and get this thread locked

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by JFMartiMcDandruff

somebody needs to sacrifice their NT account and get this thread locked

i thought about it a couple of times, but when this thread was originally locked, 4 threads came up in its place asking why it was locked and the hunt for the answer continued.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by JFMartiMcDandruff

somebody needs to sacrifice their NT account and get this thread locked

i thought about it a couple of times, but when this thread was originally locked, 4 threads came up in its place asking why it was locked and the hunt for the answer continued.

 

[certifiedsw]

Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that you go from left to right after adding what is inside the parentheses?
The 2 is NOT connected to the 9+3. IT IS NOT. If it was connected the problem would look like this: 48/(2(9+3))

Does the problem look like that? No, it doesn't. And 

 @ dude saying it's undefined. What the @#$# the problem is given to you right there son, you solve from left to right.

48/2(9+3) = 48/2 * (9+3)

Do you guys see the light?

From there you would go from left to right so you get 24 (12) = 288 

 

[certifiedsw]

Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that you go from left to right after adding what is inside the parentheses?
The 2 is NOT connected to the 9+3. IT IS NOT. If it was connected the problem would look like this: 48/(2(9+3))

Does the problem look like that? No, it doesn't. And 

 @ dude saying it's undefined. What the @#$# the problem is given to you right there son, you solve from left to right.

48/2(9+3) = 48/2 * (9+3)

Do you guys see the light?

From there you would go from left to right so you get 24 (12) = 288 

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

if the problem said 48/2(9+3) it would be safe to assume that 48/2 was the coefficient to the term (9+3).

but the problem says 48÷2(9+3) implying that everything after the division sign is in the denominator, grouping 2 as the coefficient to (9+3)

Source for your theory?

lol @ theory.

when you use the / instead of the ÷ its unclear as to whether the coefficient is 48/2 or just simply 2. the OG problem used a ÷ so by changing it to a / is where the misinterpretation of the problem is coming. team 288 is using the / to make the coeffiecient 48/2 and team 2 is using the ÷ as the separation of your numerator and denominator.

EDIT:
how would you solve 20 ÷ 2(5)

and do you see the difference between the problem:

20 ÷ 2(5)
and
20/2(5)

in the first problem, it is 20 divided by the product of 2 and 5.

the second problem is the product of 20/2 and 5.

You are assuming. Just show proof where ÷ means that 20 is divided by the product of 2 and 5. If that was the case you would add another set of parenthesis around them. You cant just make assumptions in math that arent true, which is the biggest issue with 2 believers you say that these things you guys are saying are facts but where is the proof at?

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

if the problem said 48/2(9+3) it would be safe to assume that 48/2 was the coefficient to the term (9+3).

but the problem says 48÷2(9+3) implying that everything after the division sign is in the denominator, grouping 2 as the coefficient to (9+3)

Source for your theory?

lol @ theory.

when you use the / instead of the ÷ its unclear as to whether the coefficient is 48/2 or just simply 2. the OG problem used a ÷ so by changing it to a / is where the misinterpretation of the problem is coming. team 288 is using the / to make the coeffiecient 48/2 and team 2 is using the ÷ as the separation of your numerator and denominator.

EDIT:
how would you solve 20 ÷ 2(5)

and do you see the difference between the problem:

20 ÷ 2(5)
and
20/2(5)

in the first problem, it is 20 divided by the product of 2 and 5.

the second problem is the product of 20/2 and 5.

You are assuming. Just show proof where ÷ means that 20 is divided by the product of 2 and 5. If that was the case you would add another set of parenthesis around them. You cant just make assumptions in math that arent true, which is the biggest issue with 2 believers you say that these things you guys are saying are facts but where is the proof at?

 

[usainboltisfast]

According to the wikipedia page the Obelus sign only means division nothing else. You guys are just assuming that it means more than what it means. SHOW PROOF THE OBELUS SIGN SEPARATES THE NUMERATOR AND DENOMINATOR IN EQUATIONS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelus

/thread

 

[usainboltisfast]

According to the wikipedia page the Obelus sign only means division nothing else. You guys are just assuming that it means more than what it means. SHOW PROOF THE OBELUS SIGN SEPARATES THE NUMERATOR AND DENOMINATOR IN EQUATIONS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelus

/thread

 

[240Zestways]

It's funny because Team 288 has converted a lot of team 2 members, but I don't see the opposite happening. I wonder why...

 

[240Zestways]

It's funny because Team 288 has converted a lot of team 2 members, but I don't see the opposite happening. I wonder why...

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast


Source for your theory?

lol @ theory.

when you use the / instead of the ÷ its unclear as to whether the coefficient is 48/2 or just simply 2. the OG problem used a ÷ so by changing it to a / is where the misinterpretation of the problem is coming. team 288 is using the / to make the coeffiecient 48/2 and team 2 is using the ÷ as the separation of your numerator and denominator.

EDIT:
how would you solve 20 ÷ 2(5)

and do you see the difference between the problem:

20 ÷ 2(5)
and
20/2(5)

in the first problem, it is 20 divided by the product of 2 and 5.

the second problem is the product of 20/2 and 5.

You are assuming. Just show proof where ÷ means that 20 is divided by the product of 2 and 5. If that was the case you would add another set of parenthesis around them. You cant just make assumptions in math that arent true, which is the biggest issue with 2 believers you say that these things you guys are saying are facts but where is the proof at?

 the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast


Source for your theory?

lol @ theory.

when you use the / instead of the ÷ its unclear as to whether the coefficient is 48/2 or just simply 2. the OG problem used a ÷ so by changing it to a / is where the misinterpretation of the problem is coming. team 288 is using the / to make the coeffiecient 48/2 and team 2 is using the ÷ as the separation of your numerator and denominator.

EDIT:
how would you solve 20 ÷ 2(5)

and do you see the difference between the problem:

20 ÷ 2(5)
and
20/2(5)

in the first problem, it is 20 divided by the product of 2 and 5.

the second problem is the product of 20/2 and 5.

You are assuming. Just show proof where ÷ means that 20 is divided by the product of 2 and 5. If that was the case you would add another set of parenthesis around them. You cant just make assumptions in math that arent true, which is the biggest issue with 2 believers you say that these things you guys are saying are facts but where is the proof at?

 the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son


lol @ theory.

when you use the / instead of the ÷ its unclear as to whether the coefficient is 48/2 or just simply 2. the OG problem used a ÷ so by changing it to a / is where the misinterpretation of the problem is coming. team 288 is using the / to make the coeffiecient 48/2 and team 2 is using the ÷ as the separation of your numerator and denominator.

EDIT:
how would you solve 20 ÷ 2(5)

and do you see the difference between the problem:

20 ÷ 2(5)
and
20/2(5)

in the first problem, it is 20 divided by the product of 2 and 5.

the second problem is the product of 20/2 and 5.

You are assuming. Just show proof where ÷ means that 20 is divided by the product of 2 and 5. If that was the case you would add another set of parenthesis around them. You cant just make assumptions in math that arent true, which is the biggest issue with 2 believers you say that these things you guys are saying are facts but where is the proof at?

 the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

THE DIVISION SYMBOL DOES NOT SEPERATE FRACTIONS. Only a horizontal line indicates a fraction. Im not adding a parenthesis because its not needed if you go by order of operations you will get the answer. You cant find any evidence of the division symbol indicating a complete fraction for an equation. Im giving you the opportunity now to find proof of your belief. Obviously if you cant find proof your belief is false.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son


lol @ theory.

when you use the / instead of the ÷ its unclear as to whether the coefficient is 48/2 or just simply 2. the OG problem used a ÷ so by changing it to a / is where the misinterpretation of the problem is coming. team 288 is using the / to make the coeffiecient 48/2 and team 2 is using the ÷ as the separation of your numerator and denominator.

EDIT:
how would you solve 20 ÷ 2(5)

and do you see the difference between the problem:

20 ÷ 2(5)
and
20/2(5)

in the first problem, it is 20 divided by the product of 2 and 5.

the second problem is the product of 20/2 and 5.

You are assuming. Just show proof where ÷ means that 20 is divided by the product of 2 and 5. If that was the case you would add another set of parenthesis around them. You cant just make assumptions in math that arent true, which is the biggest issue with 2 believers you say that these things you guys are saying are facts but where is the proof at?

 the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

THE DIVISION SYMBOL DOES NOT SEPERATE FRACTIONS. Only a horizontal line indicates a fraction. Im not adding a parenthesis because its not needed if you go by order of operations you will get the answer. You cant find any evidence of the division symbol indicating a complete fraction for an equation. Im giving you the opportunity now to find proof of your belief. Obviously if you cant find proof your belief is false.

 

[mo greene]

Warned.

 

[mo greene]

Warned.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

You are assuming. Just show proof where ÷ means that 20 is divided by the product of 2 and 5. If that was the case you would add another set of parenthesis around them. You cant just make assumptions in math that arent true, which is the biggest issue with 2 believers you say that these things you guys are saying are facts but where is the proof at?

 the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

THE DIVISION SYMBOL DOES NOT SEPERATE FRACTIONS. Only a horizontal line indicates a fraction. Im not adding a parenthesis because its not needed if you go by order of operations you will get the answer. You cant find any evidence of the division symbol indicating a complete fraction for an equation. Im giving you the opportunity now to find proof of your belief. Obviously if you cant find proof your belief is false.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

You are assuming. Just show proof where ÷ means that 20 is divided by the product of 2 and 5. If that was the case you would add another set of parenthesis around them. You cant just make assumptions in math that arent true, which is the biggest issue with 2 believers you say that these things you guys are saying are facts but where is the proof at?

 the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

THE DIVISION SYMBOL DOES NOT SEPERATE FRACTIONS. Only a horizontal line indicates a fraction. Im not adding a parenthesis because its not needed if you go by order of operations you will get the answer. You cant find any evidence of the division symbol indicating a complete fraction for an equation. Im giving you the opportunity now to find proof of your belief. Obviously if you cant find proof your belief is false.

 

[mo greene]

^ you just added brackets between the 2(12) though to make it one unit

 

[mo greene]

^ you just added brackets between the 2(12) though to make it one unit

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son


 the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

THE DIVISION SYMBOL DOES NOT SEPERATE FRACTIONS. Only a horizontal line indicates a fraction. Im not adding a parenthesis because its not needed if you go by order of operations you will get the answer. You cant find any evidence of the division symbol indicating a complete fraction for an equation. Im giving you the opportunity now to find proof of your belief. Obviously if you cant find proof your belief is false.

Your doing order of operations wrong. 48 is ONLY dividing into 2 nothing else.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son


 the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

THE DIVISION SYMBOL DOES NOT SEPERATE FRACTIONS. Only a horizontal line indicates a fraction. Im not adding a parenthesis because its not needed if you go by order of operations you will get the answer. You cant find any evidence of the division symbol indicating a complete fraction for an equation. Im giving you the opportunity now to find proof of your belief. Obviously if you cant find proof your belief is false.

Your doing order of operations wrong. 48 is ONLY dividing into 2 nothing else.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

THE DIVISION SYMBOL DOES NOT SEPERATE FRACTIONS. Only a horizontal line indicates a fraction. Im not adding a parenthesis because its not needed if you go by order of operations you will get the answer. You cant find any evidence of the division symbol indicating a complete fraction for an equation. Im giving you the opportunity now to find proof of your belief. Obviously if you cant find proof your belief is false.

Your doing order of operations wrong. 48 is ONLY dividing into 2 nothing else.

im saying, if 48 were only dividing 2, there would be another set of parenthesis to separate the 2 from (9+3). i'm about to take this to my calculus tutor in an hour or so and i'll see if he can record an explanation for this.