48÷2(9+3) = ???

[certifiedsw]

The damn answer IS 288. Like I said earlier, the people getting 2 are trying to manipulate the problem in order to justify their answer. The problem is rather VERY simple.
48/2(9+3) = 48/2 * (9+3)

Can't believe some of ya'll. 

 

[certifiedsw]

The damn answer IS 288. Like I said earlier, the people getting 2 are trying to manipulate the problem in order to justify their answer. The problem is rather VERY simple.
48/2(9+3) = 48/2 * (9+3)

Can't believe some of ya'll. 

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by GreenRanger

Originally Posted by dland24

Can anyone please show me ANY source which EXPLICITLY states that the first part of the order of operations is not just whats inside the parentheses, but anything connected to them as well?  

"That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy"


http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm

you mean the same site that says this

and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!
(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)




if you havent figured out the special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication, that multilying 2(9+3) overrides 48/2 because of how the 2 is written and its placement, how do you apply the same rule for division?

im about to stop trying with you because it sounds like you DONT even understand why neither multiplication or division comes first in order-of-operations

heres why: NO SPECIAL RULES

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by GreenRanger

Originally Posted by dland24

Can anyone please show me ANY source which EXPLICITLY states that the first part of the order of operations is not just whats inside the parentheses, but anything connected to them as well?  

"That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy"


http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm

you mean the same site that says this

and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!
(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)




if you havent figured out the special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication, that multilying 2(9+3) overrides 48/2 because of how the 2 is written and its placement, how do you apply the same rule for division?

im about to stop trying with you because it sounds like you DONT even understand why neither multiplication or division comes first in order-of-operations

heres why: NO SPECIAL RULES

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by GreenRanger

Originally Posted by dland24

Can anyone please show me ANY source which EXPLICITLY states that the first part of the order of operations is not just whats inside the parentheses, but anything connected to them as well?  

"That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy"


http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm

you mean the same site that says this

and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!
(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)

if you havent figured out the special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication, that multilying 2(9+3) overrides 48/2 because of how the 2 is written and its placement, how do you apply the same rule for division?

im about to stop trying with you because it sounds like you DONT understand why neither multiplication or division comes first in order-of-operations

heres why: NO SPECIAL RULES


Yeah the same site that showed this which you CLEARLY ignored to push your wrong answer of 288.

I swear Math trolls are the worst.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by GreenRanger

Originally Posted by dland24

Can anyone please show me ANY source which EXPLICITLY states that the first part of the order of operations is not just whats inside the parentheses, but anything connected to them as well?  

"That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy"


http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm

you mean the same site that says this

and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!
(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)

if you havent figured out the special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication, that multilying 2(9+3) overrides 48/2 because of how the 2 is written and its placement, how do you apply the same rule for division?

im about to stop trying with you because it sounds like you DONT understand why neither multiplication or division comes first in order-of-operations

heres why: NO SPECIAL RULES


Yeah the same site that showed this which you CLEARLY ignored to push your wrong answer of 288.

I swear Math trolls are the worst.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Yeah the same site that showed this which you CLEARLY ignored to push your wrong answer of 288.

I swear Math trolls are the worst.

so, did you learn why neither division vs multiplication OR addition vs subtraction comes first in order-of-operations today?

i hope you learned something today, instead of just taking your teachers word for it

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Yeah the same site that showed this which you CLEARLY ignored to push your wrong answer of 288.

I swear Math trolls are the worst.

so, did you learn why neither division vs multiplication OR addition vs subtraction comes first in order-of-operations today?

i hope you learned something today, instead of just taking your teachers word for it

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by GreenRanger

Originally Posted by dland24

Can anyone please show me ANY source which EXPLICITLY states that the first part of the order of operations is not just whats inside the parentheses, but anything connected to them as well?  

"That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy"


http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm

you mean the same site that says this

and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!
(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)

if you havent figured out the special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication, that multilying 2(9+3) overrides 48/2 because of how the 2 is written and its placement, how do you apply the same rule for division?

im about to stop trying with you because it sounds like you DONT even understand why neither multiplication or division comes first in order-of-operations

heres why: NO SPECIAL RULES


I don't even know why you keep insisting on 288 when you can't even refute this.
http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by GreenRanger

Originally Posted by dland24

Can anyone please show me ANY source which EXPLICITLY states that the first part of the order of operations is not just whats inside the parentheses, but anything connected to them as well?  

"That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy"


http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm

you mean the same site that says this

and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask!
(And please do not send me an e-mail either asking for or else proffering a definitive verdict on this issue. As far as I know, there is no such final verdict. And telling me to do this your way will not solve the issue!)

if you havent figured out the special rule that youre trying to apply to multiplication, that multilying 2(9+3) overrides 48/2 because of how the 2 is written and its placement, how do you apply the same rule for division?

im about to stop trying with you because it sounds like you DONT even understand why neither multiplication or division comes first in order-of-operations

heres why: NO SPECIAL RULES


I don't even know why you keep insisting on 288 when you can't even refute this.
http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-

 

[thehealthinspector]

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

 

[thehealthinspector]

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

 

[ohdannyboy]

Damnnnn, can't believe I slept on this thread! But the answer is 2. The way the problem is written out is confusing a bunch of ppl. When I took math, I would turn 48÷2(9+3) into 48/2(9+3).

 

[ohdannyboy]

Damnnnn, can't believe I slept on this thread! But the answer is 2. The way the problem is written out is confusing a bunch of ppl. When I took math, I would turn 48÷2(9+3) into 48/2(9+3).

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

Restructure? I didn't change anything. I just broke it down to you and you still don't get it.

You can't even refute a SIMPLE problem THOROUGHLY explained on paper. All you did was repost the original problem with more ((( and ))) not really explaining anything. 

How old are you?

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

Restructure? I didn't change anything. I just broke it down to you and you still don't get it.

You can't even refute a SIMPLE problem THOROUGHLY explained on paper. All you did was repost the original problem with more ((( and ))) not really explaining anything. 

How old are you?

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

you just split up the denominator, taking out the term (9+3) and turning this into a multiplication problem instead of a division problem.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

you just split up the denominator, taking out the term (9+3) and turning this into a multiplication problem instead of a division problem.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

Restructure? I didn't change anything. I just broke it down to you and you still don't get it.

You can't even refute a SIMPLE problem THOROUGHLY explained on paper. All you did was repost the original problem with more ((( and ))) not really explaining anything. 

How old are you?

NO, youre "breaking it down" is exactly where you restructure is coming from... why do you feel the need to REwrite it down instead of working it how it is?

youre misconstrued understanding ON THE PAPER is your restructure

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

you just split up the denominator, taking out the term (9+3) and turning this into a multiplication problem instead of a division problem.

sorry, please dont tell me about numerators and denominators that no one can verify

theres only order of operations

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

Restructure? I didn't change anything. I just broke it down to you and you still don't get it.

You can't even refute a SIMPLE problem THOROUGHLY explained on paper. All you did was repost the original problem with more ((( and ))) not really explaining anything. 

How old are you?

NO, youre "breaking it down" is exactly where you restructure is coming from... why do you feel the need to REwrite it down instead of working it how it is?

youre misconstrued understanding ON THE PAPER is your restructure

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

you just split up the denominator, taking out the term (9+3) and turning this into a multiplication problem instead of a division problem.

sorry, please dont tell me about numerators and denominators that no one can verify

theres only order of operations

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

Restructure? I didn't change anything. I just broke it down to you and you still don't get it.

You can't even refute a SIMPLE problem THOROUGHLY explained on paper. All you did was repost the original problem with more ((( and ))) not really explaining anything. 

How old are you?

NO, youre "breaking it down" is exactly where you restructure is coming from... why do you feel the need to REwrite it down instead of working it how it is?

Restructuring is changing the problem. I didn't change the problem. I just explained it thoroughly so you could understand it.
Apparently I failed.

You still can't and won't refute it because you have no real basis for coming up with 288 other than solving it from left to right.

How smart. 

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

Restructure? I didn't change anything. I just broke it down to you and you still don't get it.

You can't even refute a SIMPLE problem THOROUGHLY explained on paper. All you did was repost the original problem with more ((( and ))) not really explaining anything. 

How old are you?

NO, youre "breaking it down" is exactly where you restructure is coming from... why do you feel the need to REwrite it down instead of working it how it is?

Restructuring is changing the problem. I didn't change the problem. I just explained it thoroughly so you could understand it.
Apparently I failed.

You still can't and won't refute it because you have no real basis for coming up with 288 other than solving it from left to right.

How smart. 

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31


Restructure? I didn't change anything. I just broke it down to you and you still don't get it.

You can't even refute a SIMPLE problem THOROUGHLY explained on paper. All you did was repost the original problem with more ((( and ))) not really explaining anything. 

How old are you?

NO, youre "breaking it down" is exactly where you restructure is coming from... why do you feel the need to REwrite it down instead of working it how it is?

Restructuring is changing the problem. I didn't change the problem. I just explained it thoroughly so you could understand it.

except you did change the problem, you wrote it on paper in a form that no one can verify based on no verifiable rules

you have no rules to verify why distributing the 2 should overrule dividing 48 by 2

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31


Restructure? I didn't change anything. I just broke it down to you and you still don't get it.

You can't even refute a SIMPLE problem THOROUGHLY explained on paper. All you did was repost the original problem with more ((( and ))) not really explaining anything. 

How old are you?

NO, youre "breaking it down" is exactly where you restructure is coming from... why do you feel the need to REwrite it down instead of working it how it is?

Restructuring is changing the problem. I didn't change the problem. I just explained it thoroughly so you could understand it.

except you did change the problem, you wrote it on paper in a form that no one can verify based on no verifiable rules

you have no rules to verify why distributing the 2 should overrule dividing 48 by 2

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

Restructure? I didn't change anything. I just broke it down to you and you still don't get it.

You can't even refute a SIMPLE problem THOROUGHLY explained on paper. All you did was repost the original problem with more ((( and ))) not really explaining anything. 

How old are you?

NO, youre "breaking it down" is exactly where you restructure is coming from... why do you feel the need to REwrite it down instead of working it how it is?

youre misconstrued understanding ON THE PAPER is your restructure

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

i can refute it

(4/(2)(9+3)... exactly how its taken.... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses... or how about this

(4÷2*(9+3) ... exactly how its taken ... no restructuring... no unproven parentheses

keep trying to restructure the problem on paper

you just split up the denominator, taking out the term (9+3) and turning this into a multiplication problem instead of a division problem.

sorry, please dont tell me about numerators and denominators that no one can verify

theres only order of operations

that isn't restructuring though? oh ok.