48÷2(9+3) = ???

[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.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


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

Now you're just being a troll.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


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

Now you're just being a troll.

 

[boys noize]

I LOVE THIS THREAD

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

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

Now you're just being a troll.

everyone who says 288 is saying so based on rules... pemdas... order of operations

you cant even name the rule that says that 2 should be distributed first, just a made up rule that applies to multiplication but not division

pemdas - no special rules

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

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

Now you're just being a troll.

everyone who says 288 is saying so based on rules... pemdas... order of operations

you cant even name the rule that says that 2 should be distributed first, just a made up rule that applies to multiplication but not division

pemdas - no special rules

 

[boys noize]

I LOVE THIS THREAD

 

[servechilled81]

Danica Mckellar (Winnie Cooper) says 288 i'm sticking with 288.
Her credentials are enough to settle it for me.

 

[servechilled81]

Danica Mckellar (Winnie Cooper) says 288 i'm sticking with 288.
Her credentials are enough to settle it for me.

 

[hendrix watermelon]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

I LOVE THIS THREAD

word.

The thing that got me laughing is that someone posts their answer and explanation and they end it with a "/thread"

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


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

Now you're just being a troll.

everyone who says 288 is saying so based on rules... pemdas... order of operations

you cant even name the rule that says that 2 should be distributed first, just a made up rule that applies to multiplication but not division

pemdas - no special rules

Troll.

 

[hendrix watermelon]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

I LOVE THIS THREAD

word.

The thing that got me laughing is that someone posts their answer and explanation and they end it with a "/thread"

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


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

Now you're just being a troll.

everyone who says 288 is saying so based on rules... pemdas... order of operations

you cant even name the rule that says that 2 should be distributed first, just a made up rule that applies to multiplication but not division

pemdas - no special rules

Troll.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

Danica Mckellar (Winnie Cooper) says 288 i'm sticking with 288.
Her credentials are enough to settle it for me.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Now you're just being a troll.

everyone who says 288 is saying so based on rules... pemdas... order of operations

you cant even name the rule that says that 2 should be distributed first, just a made up rule that applies to multiplication but not division

pemdas - no special rules

Troll.

whats the rule then?  other than from a site that cant even verify its own claim

288 people are following rules, not making special exceptions for individual cases that shouldnt be made

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

Danica Mckellar (Winnie Cooper) says 288 i'm sticking with 288.
Her credentials are enough to settle it for me.

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Now you're just being a troll.

everyone who says 288 is saying so based on rules... pemdas... order of operations

you cant even name the rule that says that 2 should be distributed first, just a made up rule that applies to multiplication but not division

pemdas - no special rules

Troll.

whats the rule then?  other than from a site that cant even verify its own claim

288 people are following rules, not making special exceptions for individual cases that shouldnt be made

 

[sensaciondelbloque]

6922251 x 8 = 55378008..classic.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


everyone who says 288 is saying so based on rules... pemdas... order of operations

you cant even name the rule that says that 2 should be distributed first, just a made up rule that applies to multiplication but not division

pemdas - no special rules

Troll.

whats the rule then?  other than from a site that cant even verify its own claim

288 people are following rules, not making special exceptions for individual cases that shouldnt be made

Troll.

 

[sensaciondelbloque]

6922251 x 8 = 55378008..classic.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


everyone who says 288 is saying so based on rules... pemdas... order of operations

you cant even name the rule that says that 2 should be distributed first, just a made up rule that applies to multiplication but not division

pemdas - no special rules

Troll.

whats the rule then?  other than from a site that cant even verify its own claim

288 people are following rules, not making special exceptions for individual cases that shouldnt be made

Troll.

 

[servechilled81]

I think we see who the real troll is here.
Like I said, Danica Mckellar has actual accredited work in this very field of mathematics
for me, it's enough to satisfy an end to this matter.

 

[servechilled81]

I think we see who the real troll is here.
Like I said, Danica Mckellar has actual accredited work in this very field of mathematics
for me, it's enough to satisfy an end to this matter.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

I think we see who the real troll is here.
Like I said, Danica Mckellar has actual accredited work in this very field of mathematics
for me, it's enough to satisfy an end to this matter.

send her the OG problem with a division sign instead of a / and see if she interprets it the same way

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

I think we see who the real troll is here.
Like I said, Danica Mckellar has actual accredited work in this very field of mathematics
for me, it's enough to satisfy an end to this matter.

send her the OG problem with a division sign instead of a / and see if she interprets it the same way