48÷2(9+3) = ???

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

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.

Like i said explain how problem b was solved

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

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

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.

Like i said explain how problem b was solved

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

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

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

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]a(b+c) always equals ab + bc (parenthesized or not)?[/color]

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.

Yet another FAIL on your part.

You really suck at math.

Championing distribution and you cant even do that well.

smh...

...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

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

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]a(b+c) always equals ab + bc (parenthesized or not)?[/color]

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.

Yet another FAIL on your part.

You really suck at math.

Championing distribution and you cant even do that well.

smh...

...

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by snakeyes17

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

How credible do you really think you are when you stated that you dont need to solve/simplify whats in the parenthesis first?

are you going to disprove the proof he just showed?

A + B = B + A (check)
(Xa + Xb) = X(a+b) (check)

Z ÷ (Xa + Xb) can we factor out the X yes we can ---> Z ÷ X(a+b)

Since you & others seem to keep ignoring this.
Yes, you can apply distribution. Distribution is an act of multiplication.
BUT they are not truly applicable to the problem at hand.
That last example is not correct. You would get z ÷ [X(a+b)].
If you had Z÷X(a+b) , the distribution is an act of multiplication.
BUT there is division first.
In that example, you would be distributing [Z÷X(a)]+[Z÷X(b)]
THAT IS HOW DISTRIBUTION WORKS!
There is division first. It has to be included in this distribution.
IT IS FACT.

[48÷2(9)]+[48÷2(3)]
That is how you distribute. You follow order of operations, division and then multiplication within each bracket.
[24(9)]+[24(3)]
216+72 = 288

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by BC2310

Been trying to explain this for 80 pages now but it's just impossible for some people to see the difference between the two problems.�

Then put both of these "two problems" since they have such a big difference into WolframAlpha.
....
....
....
I wonder which answer you get.
Been trying to explain this for 108 pages....



I'm done with this thread, point has been proven too many times to keep going. Have at it.

 

[snakeyes17]

Originally Posted by snakeyes17

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

How credible do you really think you are when you stated that you dont need to solve/simplify whats in the parenthesis first?

are you going to disprove the proof he just showed?

A + B = B + A (check)
(Xa + Xb) = X(a+b) (check)

Z ÷ (Xa + Xb) can we factor out the X yes we can ---> Z ÷ X(a+b)

Since you & others seem to keep ignoring this.
Yes, you can apply distribution. Distribution is an act of multiplication.
BUT they are not truly applicable to the problem at hand.
That last example is not correct. You would get z ÷ [X(a+b)].
If you had Z÷X(a+b) , the distribution is an act of multiplication.
BUT there is division first.
In that example, you would be distributing [Z÷X(a)]+[Z÷X(b)]
THAT IS HOW DISTRIBUTION WORKS!
There is division first. It has to be included in this distribution.
IT IS FACT.

[48÷2(9)]+[48÷2(3)]
That is how you distribute. You follow order of operations, division and then multiplication within each bracket.
[24(9)]+[24(3)]
216+72 = 288

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by BC2310

Been trying to explain this for 80 pages now but it's just impossible for some people to see the difference between the two problems.�

Then put both of these "two problems" since they have such a big difference into WolframAlpha.
....
....
....
I wonder which answer you get.
Been trying to explain this for 108 pages....



I'm done with this thread, point has been proven too many times to keep going. Have at it.

 

[kingcrux31]

Dude!

It's the same answer regardless of how you solve problem b because ALL the signs are the same from step 1.

 

[kingcrux31]

Dude!

It's the same answer regardless of how you solve problem b because ALL the signs are the same from step 1.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Dude!

It's the same answer regardless of how you solve problem b because ALL the signs are the same from step 1.

This is where you dudes sound so dumb and ignorant. Its not about the answer you get its about how you get it. According to you multiplication by juxtaposition holds weight in order of operations. Those examples discredit that theory it CLEARLY shows that multiplication by juxtaposition IS ON PAR WITH REGULAR MULTIPLICATION. By using this same idea there is no way you can say multiplication by juxtaposition is higher than division

/thread

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Dude!

It's the same answer regardless of how you solve problem b because ALL the signs are the same from step 1.

This is where you dudes sound so dumb and ignorant. Its not about the answer you get its about how you get it. According to you multiplication by juxtaposition holds weight in order of operations. Those examples discredit that theory it CLEARLY shows that multiplication by juxtaposition IS ON PAR WITH REGULAR MULTIPLICATION. By using this same idea there is no way you can say multiplication by juxtaposition is higher than division

/thread

 

[streetballer23]

Let's see if this thread reaches page 288.

 

[streetballer23]

Let's see if this thread reaches page 288.

 

[soversotowel]

Originally Posted by SonOfTony

how did this thread go 112 pages?!

i know right.

this here can not be life.

 

[soversotowel]

Originally Posted by SonOfTony

how did this thread go 112 pages?!

i know right.

this here can not be life.

 

[paulbaekr]

112 pages...really

 

[paulbaekr]

112 pages...really

 

[yankees1129]

why are dudes using the distributive property at the 2(9+3) part and assuming its a POSITIVE 2? there's a division symbol in front of it
in order to distribute positive 2, you have to re-write the problem as 48/[2(9+3)]

 

[yankees1129]

why are dudes using the distributive property at the 2(9+3) part and assuming its a POSITIVE 2? there's a division symbol in front of it
in order to distribute positive 2, you have to re-write the problem as 48/[2(9+3)]

 

[ogbobbyjohnson773]

48÷2(9+3) wrote:

---

I got the internet goin nuts

 

[ogbobbyjohnson773]

48÷2(9+3) wrote:

---

I got the internet goin nuts

 

[yungchris504]

Originally Posted by OGbobbyjohnson773

48÷2(9+3) wrote:

---

I got the internet goin nuts

 
best reply yet

 

[yungchris504]

Originally Posted by OGbobbyjohnson773

48÷2(9+3) wrote:

---

I got the internet goin nuts

 
best reply yet

 

[ogbobbyjohnson773]

48÷2(9+3) wrote:

---

Bumpin 22 2's with the top down. I wish it was 144 2's though.

 

[ogbobbyjohnson773]

48÷2(9+3) wrote:

---

Bumpin 22 2's with the top down. I wish it was 144 2's though.

 

[ogbobbyjohnson773]

48÷2(9+3) wrote:

---

Well, my girlfriend says she cant figure me out either. FML.