48÷2(9+3) = ???

[balloonoboy]

How is 2 an afterthought when the only way there is a 2 outside the parenthesis is because there was originally a 2 inside.

Don't ever call me obtuse in your life, lil $$%@!. Tryna use big words and !$!!. ###% outta here.

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

The point isn't whether the DP gives you one or two terms, but that you must distribute.

Imagine the 2 like the sickle cell gene. And the 9 and 3 as the parents of an offspring. Whatever the offspring gets, is factored out. So as you see the 2 - sickle cell gene - will always be a part of the 9 and 3, no matter what you do. And the only way to express this gene is to distribute.

And if you distribute, whether you add first then go on or divide then add, you'll never get 288.

That was a fairly good $!* example, Team 288ers. Rebut.

Sickle Cell?

You're drawing analogies between this problem and sickle cell?

...

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

50÷2(1-1) = 50÷2(0) = 50÷0 = UNDEFINED
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]I already did all the explanation but you refuse to learn and accept the CORRECT answer. What you fail to understand is that 2 is the common factor of 18 and 6 (also 3), hence 2(9+3). If you choose 3 as the common factor it will be like this 3(6+2). Therefore the number next to the parenthesis must be resolved first before you proceed with the rest of the problem. [/font]

lol now where are back to multiplying before divsion again.

Funny how I already explained it in detail and you still ignored it. 
I fear for the future of NT.

Where is your proof of this? Am i really supposed to believe you without any source?

Explain why in problem b they dont do why you say is true?
http://www.oceanic.name/m...attachment.php?attId=362

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

The point isn't whether the DP gives you one or two terms, but that you must distribute.

Imagine the 2 like the sickle cell gene. And the 9 and 3 as the parents of an offspring. Whatever the offspring gets, is factored out. So as you see the 2 - sickle cell gene - will always be a part of the 9 and 3, no matter what you do. And the only way to express this gene is to distribute.

And if you distribute, whether you add first then go on or divide then add, you'll never get 288.

That was a fairly good $!* example, Team 288ers. Rebut.

Sickle Cell?

You're drawing analogies between this problem and sickle cell?

...

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

50÷2(1-1) = 50÷2(0) = 50÷0 = UNDEFINED
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]I already did all the explanation but you refuse to learn and accept the CORRECT answer. What you fail to understand is that 2 is the common factor of 18 and 6 (also 3), hence 2(9+3). If you choose 3 as the common factor it will be like this 3(6+2). Therefore the number next to the parenthesis must be resolved first before you proceed with the rest of the problem. [/font]

lol now where are back to multiplying before divsion again.

Funny how I already explained it in detail and you still ignored it. 
I fear for the future of NT.

Where is your proof of this? Am i really supposed to believe you without any source?

Explain why in problem b they dont do why you say is true?
http://www.oceanic.name/m...attachment.php?attId=362

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

How is 2 an afterthought when the only way there is a 2 outside the parenthesis is because there was originally a 2 inside.

Don't ever call me obtuse in your life, lil $$%@!. Tryna use big words and !$!!. ###% outta here.

...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

How is 2 an afterthought when the only way there is a 2 outside the parenthesis is because there was originally a 2 inside.

Don't ever call me obtuse in your life, lil $$%@!. Tryna use big words and !$!!. ###% outta here.

...

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

lol now where are back to multiplying before divsion again.

Funny how I already explained it in detail and you still ignored it. 
I fear for the future of NT.

Where is your proof of this? Am i really supposed to believe you without any source?

Proof of what? Common factors? That's basic Math!

* FACE PALM *

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

lol now where are back to multiplying before divsion again.

Funny how I already explained it in detail and you still ignored it. 
I fear for the future of NT.

Where is your proof of this? Am i really supposed to believe you without any source?

Proof of what? Common factors? That's basic Math!

* FACE PALM *

 

[balloonoboy]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

The point isn't whether the DP gives you one or two terms, but that you must distribute.
Imagine the 2 like the sickle cell gene. And the 9 and 3 as the parents of an offspring. Whatever the offspring gets, is factored out. So as you see the 2 - sickle cell gene - will always be a part of the 9 and 3, no matter what you do. And the only way to express this gene is to distribute.

That was a fairly good $+# example, Team 288ers. Rebut.

Let me ask you one last time does distribution give you one or two terms in this situation?

I been said 70 pages ago -

- that I don't know whether you add the two distributed products together or leave them be and divide then add in the OOO.

Hence, the OG equation read 48÷(18+6) or 48÷18+6

Buyahhhhhhhhhhh!

So instead of trying to prove a point why dont you just sit this one out since you are unsure?

The ONLY reason why I'm unsure is because you can arrive at 48÷2(9+3) via either equation.

Peep:

48÷(18+6) - hmm what can I factor out of these three numbers? Well since the two terms are already in a parenthesis, we just look for some common factors. We have 1, 2, 3, and 6. We might as well choose 2 since it's the one the mastermind factored out. Voila, heres your equation - 48÷2(9+3)

Or

48÷ 18 + 6 - hmm what numbers can I factor out that will give me a common coefficient factor, with either a plus or minus sign in the parenthesis. Well looka there - 18 and 6 have common factors. Let's use those. (48 does too, but the mastermind used only 18 and 6, obvs). As we know from before, 2 is a common factor of both 18 and 6. Let's just group those together. Ricola, we get 48÷2(9+3)

As you can see, either one of these could have been the OG equation. And since there isn't a rule that says to add the products of a distribution in PEMDAS, we can get two possible answers. Definitely not 288.

NOPE!

 

[balloonoboy]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

The point isn't whether the DP gives you one or two terms, but that you must distribute.
Imagine the 2 like the sickle cell gene. And the 9 and 3 as the parents of an offspring. Whatever the offspring gets, is factored out. So as you see the 2 - sickle cell gene - will always be a part of the 9 and 3, no matter what you do. And the only way to express this gene is to distribute.

That was a fairly good $+# example, Team 288ers. Rebut.

Let me ask you one last time does distribution give you one or two terms in this situation?

I been said 70 pages ago -

- that I don't know whether you add the two distributed products together or leave them be and divide then add in the OOO.

Hence, the OG equation read 48÷(18+6) or 48÷18+6

Buyahhhhhhhhhhh!

So instead of trying to prove a point why dont you just sit this one out since you are unsure?

The ONLY reason why I'm unsure is because you can arrive at 48÷2(9+3) via either equation.

Peep:

48÷(18+6) - hmm what can I factor out of these three numbers? Well since the two terms are already in a parenthesis, we just look for some common factors. We have 1, 2, 3, and 6. We might as well choose 2 since it's the one the mastermind factored out. Voila, heres your equation - 48÷2(9+3)

Or

48÷ 18 + 6 - hmm what numbers can I factor out that will give me a common coefficient factor, with either a plus or minus sign in the parenthesis. Well looka there - 18 and 6 have common factors. Let's use those. (48 does too, but the mastermind used only 18 and 6, obvs). As we know from before, 2 is a common factor of both 18 and 6. Let's just group those together. Ricola, we get 48÷2(9+3)

As you can see, either one of these could have been the OG equation. And since there isn't a rule that says to add the products of a distribution in PEMDAS, we can get two possible answers. Definitely not 288.

NOPE!

 

[balloonoboy]

I deserve a stipend for schooling y'all chumps.

 

[balloonoboy]

I deserve a stipend for schooling y'all chumps.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Funny how I already explained it in detail and you still ignored it. 
I fear for the future of NT.

Where is your proof of this? Am i really supposed to believe you without any source?

Proof of what? Common factors? That's basic Math!

* FACE PALM *

It basic math that multiplication comes before division huh?

You are REALLY trying to prove that stereotype wrong....

you have yet to explain the rational behind letter b in this problem

http://www.oceanic.name/m...attachment.php?attId=362

but I guess you are going to pull a pacquaio and not take the "test"

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Funny how I already explained it in detail and you still ignored it. 
I fear for the future of NT.

Where is your proof of this? Am i really supposed to believe you without any source?

Proof of what? Common factors? That's basic Math!

* FACE PALM *

It basic math that multiplication comes before division huh?

You are REALLY trying to prove that stereotype wrong....

you have yet to explain the rational behind letter b in this problem

http://www.oceanic.name/m...attachment.php?attId=362

but I guess you are going to pull a pacquaio and not take the "test"

 

[sonoftony]

how did this thread go 112 pages?!

 

[sonoftony]

how did this thread go 112 pages?!

 

[balloonoboy]

Double

 

[balloonoboy]

Double

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

I been said 70 pages ago -

- that I don't know whether you add the two distributed products together or leave them be and divide then add in the OOO.

Hence, the OG equation read 48÷(18+6) or 48÷18+6

Buyahhhhhhhhhhh!

So instead of trying to prove a point why dont you just sit this one out since you are unsure?

The ONLY reason why I'm unsure is because you can arrive at 48÷2(9+3) via either equation.

Peep:

48÷(18+6) - hmm what can I factor out of these three numbers? Well since the two terms are already in a parenthesis, we just look for some common factors. We have 1, 2, 3, and 6. We might as well choose 2 since it's the one the mastermind factored out. Voila, heres your equation - 48÷2(9+3)

Or

48÷ 18 + 6 - hmm what numbers can I factor out that will give me a common coefficient factor, with either a plus or minus sign in the parenthesis. Well looka there - 18 and 6 have common factors. Let's use those. (48 does too, but the mastermind used only 18 and 6, obvs). As we know from before, 2 is a common factor of both 18 and 6. Let's just group those together. Ricola, we get 48÷2(9+3)

As you can see, either one of these could have been the OG equation. And since there isn't a rule that says to add the products of a distribution in PEMDAS, we can get two possible answers. Definitely not 288.

NOPE!

son you are manipulating the problem again. how are you going to really wonder how they got to the question? the question is as it is written nothing more nothing less. You still think you can distribute in this problem which is the saddest thing about everything.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

I been said 70 pages ago -

- that I don't know whether you add the two distributed products together or leave them be and divide then add in the OOO.

Hence, the OG equation read 48÷(18+6) or 48÷18+6

Buyahhhhhhhhhhh!

So instead of trying to prove a point why dont you just sit this one out since you are unsure?

The ONLY reason why I'm unsure is because you can arrive at 48÷2(9+3) via either equation.

Peep:

48÷(18+6) - hmm what can I factor out of these three numbers? Well since the two terms are already in a parenthesis, we just look for some common factors. We have 1, 2, 3, and 6. We might as well choose 2 since it's the one the mastermind factored out. Voila, heres your equation - 48÷2(9+3)

Or

48÷ 18 + 6 - hmm what numbers can I factor out that will give me a common coefficient factor, with either a plus or minus sign in the parenthesis. Well looka there - 18 and 6 have common factors. Let's use those. (48 does too, but the mastermind used only 18 and 6, obvs). As we know from before, 2 is a common factor of both 18 and 6. Let's just group those together. Ricola, we get 48÷2(9+3)

As you can see, either one of these could have been the OG equation. And since there isn't a rule that says to add the products of a distribution in PEMDAS, we can get two possible answers. Definitely not 288.

NOPE!

son you are manipulating the problem again. how are you going to really wonder how they got to the question? the question is as it is written nothing more nothing less. You still think you can distribute in this problem which is the saddest thing about everything.

 

[balloonoboy]

Tell me how in the blue moose am I manipulating the problem when:

a(b+c) always equals ab + ac (parenthesized or not)?

All I did was unfactoring, oh yea distribute. You should name your first born distribute for being so damn stubborn. To the facts at that. I didn't make this up. Get at Pythagoras or somebody. Not me.

 

[balloonoboy]

Tell me how in the blue moose am I manipulating the problem when:

a(b+c) always equals ab + ac (parenthesized or not)?

All I did was unfactoring, oh yea distribute. You should name your first born distribute for being so damn stubborn. To the facts at that. I didn't make this up. Get at Pythagoras or somebody. Not me.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Where is your proof of this? Am i really supposed to believe you without any source?

Proof of what? Common factors? That's basic Math!

* FACE PALM *

It basic math that multiplication comes before division huh?

When did I say that? NEVER. Keep avoiding my explanations. You probably don't understand most of them anyway.
And regarding Pacquiao, you're an idiot if you think that the whole "testing" controversy is not part of the hype leading to the actual fight.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Where is your proof of this? Am i really supposed to believe you without any source?

Proof of what? Common factors? That's basic Math!

* FACE PALM *

It basic math that multiplication comes before division huh?

When did I say that? NEVER. Keep avoiding my explanations. You probably don't understand most of them anyway.
And regarding Pacquiao, you're an idiot if you think that the whole "testing" controversy is not part of the hype leading to the actual fight.