48÷2(9+3) = ???

[k2theablam]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

jesus christ, people STAY falling for the "distributive property" [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]like its a RULE, its not, its a PROPERTY of PEMDAS[/color] that only applies itself when there is an addition sign, subtraction sign, or nothing in front of the outside multiplier

in this case theres a division sign of the outside multiplier

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]distributiv PROPERTY is not a RULE, it is a PROPERTY[/color]

PEMD>>>>AS

Lol, where did you read that? You make that up in your head?

Can you prove it, buddy?

 

[k2theablam]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

jesus christ, people STAY falling for the "distributive property" [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]like its a RULE, its not, its a PROPERTY of PEMDAS[/color] that only applies itself when there is an addition sign, subtraction sign, or nothing in front of the outside multiplier

in this case theres a division sign of the outside multiplier

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]distributiv PROPERTY is not a RULE, it is a PROPERTY[/color]

PEMD>>>>AS

Lol, where did you read that? You make that up in your head?

Can you prove it, buddy?

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by do work son


look at the 1st example on the second page of that article. it proves why the answer is 2

That ain't prove @#$# man. It proves that you go from LEFT to RIGHT.

Wrong. You have to do 2(9+3) first.

Why? Are you saying that the order of operations shouldn't be followed? Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication/Division, Addition/Subtraction. BUT: MD and AS are in the same RANK so you go from left to right when there are more than one.
48/2(9+3)
9+3=12 
48/2(12)   at this point, we are instructed to do multiplication/division from left to right, so we are left with
24(12)
which is 24x12, which leads us to?

288

How can you argue with that? Why would we do 2(9+3) first? It doesn't follow the order of operations. You do understand the left to right aspect of PEMDAS when multiplication and division are both present, don't you?

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by do work son


look at the 1st example on the second page of that article. it proves why the answer is 2

That ain't prove @#$# man. It proves that you go from LEFT to RIGHT.

Wrong. You have to do 2(9+3) first.

Why? Are you saying that the order of operations shouldn't be followed? Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication/Division, Addition/Subtraction. BUT: MD and AS are in the same RANK so you go from left to right when there are more than one.
48/2(9+3)
9+3=12 
48/2(12)   at this point, we are instructed to do multiplication/division from left to right, so we are left with
24(12)
which is 24x12, which leads us to?

288

How can you argue with that? Why would we do 2(9+3) first? It doesn't follow the order of operations. You do understand the left to right aspect of PEMDAS when multiplication and division are both present, don't you?

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by tecca nena

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

All the explanation you need.
http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741681/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741735/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741752/48-2-9-3-

lol... Math aside your explanation doesnt prove anything because using circular logic to prove your point... If we replace each equation you use with variables its:


" you will only get 288 if you think A = B... but its not!!

A = C (which comes out to 2) which does not = B, because B equeals D (which comes out to 28

again

A =/= B  because it B comes out to 288"

You're either blind or can't comprehend simple Math.

You know you're wrong.
The 2 is NOT connected to the 9+3.

If it was connected, it would look like this: 48/(2(9+3))

Answer this question for me, is that the problem?????

NO, it is NOT. If the problem did look like that then yes, the answer is clearly 2. However it is not.

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

Go from left to right, you get 288. 

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by tecca nena

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

All the explanation you need.
http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741681/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741735/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741752/48-2-9-3-

lol... Math aside your explanation doesnt prove anything because using circular logic to prove your point... If we replace each equation you use with variables its:


" you will only get 288 if you think A = B... but its not!!

A = C (which comes out to 2) which does not = B, because B equeals D (which comes out to 28

again

A =/= B  because it B comes out to 288"

You're either blind or can't comprehend simple Math.

You know you're wrong.
The 2 is NOT connected to the 9+3.

If it was connected, it would look like this: 48/(2(9+3))

Answer this question for me, is that the problem?????

NO, it is NOT. If the problem did look like that then yes, the answer is clearly 2. However it is not.

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

Go from left to right, you get 288. 

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

jesus christ, people STAY falling for the "distributive property" [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]like its a RULE, its not, its a PROPERTY of PEMDAS[/color] that only applies itself when there is an addition sign, subtraction sign, or nothing in front of the outside multiplier

in this case theres a division sign of the outside multiplier

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]distributiv PROPERTY is not a RULE, it is a PROPERTY[/color]

PEMD>>>>AS

Lol, where did you read that? You make that up in your head?

Can you prove it, buddy?

48 + 2(9+3)... distribution applies
48 - 2(9+3)... distribution applies

48 ÷ 2(9+3) ... distribution does not applies, LEFT to RIGHT comes first

god, people demand sources like they dont understand how ORDER OF OPERATIONS WORKS

PEMD>>>>>>>AS

i have no sources because i actually understand how pemdas (order-of-operations) works

jesus christ, its like im the only person on here who can actually comprehend why neither division or multiplication comes first in PEMDAS

distributive property is a property of pemdas, NOT A RULE, not some external rule that overrides pemdas

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


no, what you guys refuse to understand is that THERE ARE NO BRACKETS, youre placing them in your mind to help you (mis)understand the problem instead of taking problem as it is

no unproven brackets... no unproven parentheses... take the problem as it is

[h3]48÷2(9+3) = ???[/h3]
Like I said, TROLL.

no, how youre reading it in your MIND is like this.... 48/((2(9+3))

TAKE THE PROBLEM AS IT IS, no unproven parentheses

You're the one who keeps insisting that problems can be written as 48÷(2(9+3))
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[h3]48÷2(9+3) = ???[/h3]

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by il prescelto


Okay, for all the people who think the answer is 2, readthis and let me know what you think.
We start off with 48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12). We add the 9 and 3 first becausethey're in the parenthesis. I think everyone agrees on this step.
Now we have
48/2(12). Let us assume that 48/2(12) = 48/(2(12)) (which is what the peoplewho think the answer is 2 are assuming)
Since multiplication and division are inverse processes (in other words,XY=X(1/Y), we can do the following:
48/(2(12)) = 48(1/(2(12))) = 48 (1/2) (1/12)
Now let us turn those (1/2) and (1/12) back into division sign
48 (1/2) (1/12) = 48/2/12. And 48/2/12 surely does not equal 48/2(12). Therefore,our initial assumption is wrong.

Here’s just the math

48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12). Assume 48/2(12) = 48/(2(12)). Then, 48/2(12)= 48/(2(12)) = 48(1/(2(12))) = 48 (1/2) (1/2) = 48/2/12 =/= 48/2(12). Therefore,our initial assumption is wrong, and 48/2(12) should not be interpreted as48/(2(12)).
If anyone thinks this is wrong, let me know. Andby the way, some guy said people with college education say the answer is 2. MyHarvard, Caltech, MIT, Yale, Stanford, and Cal friends all say 288; I’m the sonof two Cal grads, and I’ve been a student at Cal myself….since we’re talkingabout credentials 

Someone prove me wrong...

correct on the notion that division is just a multiplication of the inverse or reciprocal. therefore it would be 48/1 multiplied by 1/2 multiplied by 1/12 right? when you multiply those across you get 48/24 which is 2. correct?

 

[thehealthinspector]

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

jesus christ, people STAY falling for the "distributive property" [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]like its a RULE, its not, its a PROPERTY of PEMDAS[/color] that only applies itself when there is an addition sign, subtraction sign, or nothing in front of the outside multiplier

in this case theres a division sign of the outside multiplier

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]distributiv PROPERTY is not a RULE, it is a PROPERTY[/color]

PEMD>>>>AS

Lol, where did you read that? You make that up in your head?

Can you prove it, buddy?

48 + 2(9+3)... distribution applies
48 - 2(9+3)... distribution applies

48 ÷ 2(9+3) ... distribution does not applies, LEFT to RIGHT comes first

god, people demand sources like they dont understand how ORDER OF OPERATIONS WORKS

PEMD>>>>>>>AS

i have no sources because i actually understand how pemdas (order-of-operations) works

jesus christ, its like im the only person on here who can actually comprehend why neither division or multiplication comes first in PEMDAS

distributive property is a property of pemdas, NOT A RULE, not some external rule that overrides pemdas

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector


no, what you guys refuse to understand is that THERE ARE NO BRACKETS, youre placing them in your mind to help you (mis)understand the problem instead of taking problem as it is

no unproven brackets... no unproven parentheses... take the problem as it is

[h3]48÷2(9+3) = ???[/h3]
Like I said, TROLL.

no, how youre reading it in your MIND is like this.... 48/((2(9+3))

TAKE THE PROBLEM AS IT IS, no unproven parentheses

You're the one who keeps insisting that problems can be written as 48÷(2(9+3))
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[h3]48÷2(9+3) = ???[/h3]

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by il prescelto


Okay, for all the people who think the answer is 2, readthis and let me know what you think.
We start off with 48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12). We add the 9 and 3 first becausethey're in the parenthesis. I think everyone agrees on this step.
Now we have
48/2(12). Let us assume that 48/2(12) = 48/(2(12)) (which is what the peoplewho think the answer is 2 are assuming)
Since multiplication and division are inverse processes (in other words,XY=X(1/Y), we can do the following:
48/(2(12)) = 48(1/(2(12))) = 48 (1/2) (1/12)
Now let us turn those (1/2) and (1/12) back into division sign
48 (1/2) (1/12) = 48/2/12. And 48/2/12 surely does not equal 48/2(12). Therefore,our initial assumption is wrong.

Here’s just the math

48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12). Assume 48/2(12) = 48/(2(12)). Then, 48/2(12)= 48/(2(12)) = 48(1/(2(12))) = 48 (1/2) (1/2) = 48/2/12 =/= 48/2(12). Therefore,our initial assumption is wrong, and 48/2(12) should not be interpreted as48/(2(12)).
If anyone thinks this is wrong, let me know. Andby the way, some guy said people with college education say the answer is 2. MyHarvard, Caltech, MIT, Yale, Stanford, and Cal friends all say 288; I’m the sonof two Cal grads, and I’ve been a student at Cal myself….since we’re talkingabout credentials 

Someone prove me wrong...

correct on the notion that division is just a multiplication of the inverse or reciprocal. therefore it would be 48/1 multiplied by 1/2 multiplied by 1/12 right? when you multiply those across you get 48/24 which is 2. correct?

 

[il prescelto]

Someone prove my proof my contradiction wrong. By the way I tried to prove it in a manner that avoided encountering issues with the rules you guys are arguing about. I didn't even have to obtain an actual answer to prove my point.

 

[il prescelto]

Someone prove my proof my contradiction wrong. By the way I tried to prove it in a manner that avoided encountering issues with the rules you guys are arguing about. I didn't even have to obtain an actual answer to prove my point.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by tecca nena


lol... Math aside your explanation doesnt prove anything because using circular logic to prove your point... If we replace each equation you use with variables its:


" you will only get 288 if you think A = B... but its not!!

A = C (which comes out to 2) which does not = B, because B equeals D (which comes out to 28

again

A =/= B  because it B comes out to 288"

You're either blind or can't comprehend simple Math.

You know you're wrong.
The 2 is NOT connected to the 9+3.

If it was connected, it would look like this: 48/(2(9+3))

Answer this question for me, is that the problem?????

NO, it is NOT. If the problem did look like that then yes, the answer is clearly 2. However it is not.

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

Go from left to right, you get 288. 

Wrong because...
http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-and because problems will NEVER be written as 48÷(2(9+3))

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by tecca nena


lol... Math aside your explanation doesnt prove anything because using circular logic to prove your point... If we replace each equation you use with variables its:


" you will only get 288 if you think A = B... but its not!!

A = C (which comes out to 2) which does not = B, because B equeals D (which comes out to 28

again

A =/= B  because it B comes out to 288"

You're either blind or can't comprehend simple Math.

You know you're wrong.
The 2 is NOT connected to the 9+3.

If it was connected, it would look like this: 48/(2(9+3))

Answer this question for me, is that the problem?????

NO, it is NOT. If the problem did look like that then yes, the answer is clearly 2. However it is not.

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

Go from left to right, you get 288. 

Wrong because...
http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-and because problems will NEVER be written as 48÷(2(9+3))

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[nyczill3st]

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by ncmalko1

The answer is 2. The entire bracket equation MUST be done first. 2(9+3) is 24


You don't just add 9 + 3 then work left to right. The entire 2(9+3) is done first.

That's one thing they refuse to understand.

It's called the distributive property I've been saying this and quoting sources since day 1... no response and everyone overlooks it.

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by eddiehouse5

The answer is 2.

BB was going wild with this, Neogaf is also.

Also- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110408055505AA0F9In

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26993361&postcount=1030

READ THIS

The distributive property of multiplication CLEARLY states that the 2(9+3) is an entire statement and CANNOT be broken up.

Jesus Christ people get your math game up.

Answer is 2

/thread.

 

[nyczill3st]

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by ncmalko1

The answer is 2. The entire bracket equation MUST be done first. 2(9+3) is 24


You don't just add 9 + 3 then work left to right. The entire 2(9+3) is done first.

That's one thing they refuse to understand.

It's called the distributive property I've been saying this and quoting sources since day 1... no response and everyone overlooks it.

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by eddiehouse5

The answer is 2.

BB was going wild with this, Neogaf is also.

Also- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110408055505AA0F9In

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26993361&postcount=1030

READ THIS

The distributive property of multiplication CLEARLY states that the 2(9+3) is an entire statement and CANNOT be broken up.

Jesus Christ people get your math game up.

Answer is 2

/thread.

 

[k2theablam]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

jesus christ, people STAY falling for the "distributive property" [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]like its a RULE, its not, its a PROPERTY of PEMDAS[/color] that only applies itself when there is an addition sign, subtraction sign, or nothing in front of the outside multiplier

in this case theres a division sign of the outside multiplier

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]distributiv PROPERTY is not a RULE, it is a PROPERTY[/color]

PEMD>>>>AS

Lol, where did you read that? You make that up in your head?

Can you prove it, buddy?

48 + 2(9+3)... distribution applies
48 - 2(9+3)... distribution applies

48 ÷ 2(9+3) ... distribution does not applies, LEFT to RIGHT comes first

god, people demand sources like they dont understand how ORDER OF OPERATIONS WORKS

PEMD>>>>>>>AS

i have no sources because i actually understand how pemdas (order-of-operations) works

jesus christ, its like im the only person on here who can actually comprehend why neither division or multiplication comes first in PEMDAS

distributive property is a property of pemdas, NOT A RULE, not some external rule that overrides pemdas

Post a source

 

[k2theablam]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

jesus christ, people STAY falling for the "distributive property" [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]like its a RULE, its not, its a PROPERTY of PEMDAS[/color] that only applies itself when there is an addition sign, subtraction sign, or nothing in front of the outside multiplier

in this case theres a division sign of the outside multiplier

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]distributiv PROPERTY is not a RULE, it is a PROPERTY[/color]

PEMD>>>>AS

Lol, where did you read that? You make that up in your head?

Can you prove it, buddy?

48 + 2(9+3)... distribution applies
48 - 2(9+3)... distribution applies

48 ÷ 2(9+3) ... distribution does not applies, LEFT to RIGHT comes first

god, people demand sources like they dont understand how ORDER OF OPERATIONS WORKS

PEMD>>>>>>>AS

i have no sources because i actually understand how pemdas (order-of-operations) works

jesus christ, its like im the only person on here who can actually comprehend why neither division or multiplication comes first in PEMDAS

distributive property is a property of pemdas, NOT A RULE, not some external rule that overrides pemdas

Post a source

 

[iron mike]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by kingcrux31


You're either blind or can't comprehend simple Math.

You know you're wrong.
The 2 is NOT connected to the 9+3.

If it was connected, it would look like this: 48/(2(9+3))

Answer this question for me, is that the problem?????

NO, it is NOT. If the problem did look like that then yes, the answer is clearly 2. However it is not.

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

Go from left to right, you get 288. 

Wrong because...
http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-and because problems will NEVER be written as 48÷(2(9+3))

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

so you just magically infer that it should be read that way? 

 

[iron mike]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by kingcrux31


You're either blind or can't comprehend simple Math.

You know you're wrong.
The 2 is NOT connected to the 9+3.

If it was connected, it would look like this: 48/(2(9+3))

Answer this question for me, is that the problem?????

NO, it is NOT. If the problem did look like that then yes, the answer is clearly 2. However it is not.

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

Go from left to right, you get 288. 

Wrong because...
http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10741706/48-2-9-3-and because problems will NEVER be written as 48÷(2(9+3))

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

so you just magically infer that it should be read that way? 

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by tecca nena


lol... Math aside your explanation doesnt prove anything because using circular logic to prove your point... If we replace each equation you use with variables its:


" you will only get 288 if you think A = B... but its not!!

A = C (which comes out to 2) which does not = B, because B equeals D (which comes out to 28

again

A =/= B  because it B comes out to 288"

You're either blind or can't comprehend simple Math.

You know you're wrong.
The 2 is NOT connected to the 9+3.

If it was connected, it would look like this: 48/(2(9+3))

Answer this question for me, is that the problem?????

NO, it is NOT. If the problem did look like that then yes, the answer is clearly 2. However it is not.

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

Go from left to right, you get 288. 

Exactly. Also, thanks for clearing up the other guy's confusion about the other example problem. It really only proves my point. If you follow the order of operations, 288 is the answer.  I don't see how you would solve the problem any other way.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by TheHealthInspector

jesus christ, people STAY falling for the "distributive property" [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]like its a RULE, its not, its a PROPERTY of PEMDAS[/color] that only applies itself when there is an addition sign, subtraction sign, or nothing in front of the outside multiplier

in this case theres a division sign of the outside multiplier

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]distributiv PROPERTY is not a RULE, it is a PROPERTY[/color]

PEMD>>>>AS

Lol, where did you read that? You make that up in your head?

Can you prove it, buddy?

48 + 2(9+3)... distribution applies
48 - 2(9+3)... distribution applies

48 ÷ 2(9+3) ... distribution does not applies, LEFT to RIGHT comes first

god, people demand sources like they dont understand how ORDER OF OPERATIONS WORKS

PEMD>>>>>>>AS

i have no sources because i actually understand how pemdas (order-of-operations) works

jesus christ, its like im the only person on here who can actually comprehend why neither division or multiplication comes first in PEMDAS

distributive property is a property of pemdas, NOT A RULE, not some external rule that overrides pemdas

You have the worst explanation. You should take yourself out from this conversation along with the others who think it's as simple as solving it from left to right. 

 

[jchambers]

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by tecca nena


lol... Math aside your explanation doesnt prove anything because using circular logic to prove your point... If we replace each equation you use with variables its:


" you will only get 288 if you think A = B... but its not!!

A = C (which comes out to 2) which does not = B, because B equeals D (which comes out to 28

again

A =/= B  because it B comes out to 288"

You're either blind or can't comprehend simple Math.

You know you're wrong.
The 2 is NOT connected to the 9+3.

If it was connected, it would look like this: 48/(2(9+3))

Answer this question for me, is that the problem?????

NO, it is NOT. If the problem did look like that then yes, the answer is clearly 2. However it is not.

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

Go from left to right, you get 288. 

Exactly. Also, thanks for clearing up the other guy's confusion about the other example problem. It really only proves my point. If you follow the order of operations, 288 is the answer.  I don't see how you would solve the problem any other way.