- 2,013
- 14
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2009
48÷2(9+3) = ???
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by n1k3b4ller,
- Start date
- 2,040
- 324
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
So by whatever theorem you have developed x(x+3)^2 would have a different result than x*(x+3)^2 right because the x is somehow attached? For those saying that the 2(9+3) is factoring out the 2 from (18+6) you are incorrect.. If that were the case then the term would be 48/(2(9+3)). Look at it from algebraic terms ex. x/(2x+6). When you factor out you are essentially multiplying by (2/2) which would result in 2*(x+3). Yes, that is a multiplication symbol because distributing terms is indeed multiplication. The term would then be x/(2*(x+3)). The parenthesis around the entire term is the only way it remains in the denominator. otherwise the equation is screwed and incorrect.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
No it shouldn't because AGAIN, w[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]hat you fail and refuse 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 firs[/color][color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]t before you proceed with the rest of the problem. [/color]Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
There is actually an implied/mostly invisible parenthesis around any terms thats why they are "terms". so the problem shoud turn into (4Originally Posted by balloonoboy
After you add what's in the parenthesis, there is still a parenthesis though.
You have to get rid of the parenthesis before moving on.
You have to get rid of the parenthesis before moving on.
You have to get rid of the parenthesis before moving on.
So, what you gonna do? 48/2x12? That is not the same as 48/2(12).
All you dudes asking your professors, ask them why the parenthesis remains when the whole point of P is to take care of the parenthesis.
Now if you had a problem that read 48/2x(9+3)...it would be easy to get rid of the parenthetical. Just add what's inside. There is no coefficient (greater than 1) attached to it. The problem at hand, there is./(2)*(12)
- 2,040
- 324
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
So by whatever theorem you have developed x(x+3)^2 would have a different result than x*(x+3)^2 right because the x is somehow attached? For those saying that the 2(9+3) is factoring out the 2 from (18+6) you are incorrect.. If that were the case then the term would be 48/(2(9+3)). Look at it from algebraic terms ex. x/(2x+6). When you factor out you are essentially multiplying by (2/2) which would result in 2*(x+3). Yes, that is a multiplication symbol because distributing terms is indeed multiplication. The term would then be x/(2*(x+3)). The parenthesis around the entire term is the only way it remains in the denominator. otherwise the equation is screwed and incorrect.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
No it shouldn't because AGAIN, w[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]hat you fail and refuse 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 firs[/color][color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]t before you proceed with the rest of the problem. [/color]Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
There is actually an implied/mostly invisible parenthesis around any terms thats why they are "terms". so the problem shoud turn into (4Originally Posted by balloonoboy
After you add what's in the parenthesis, there is still a parenthesis though.
You have to get rid of the parenthesis before moving on.
You have to get rid of the parenthesis before moving on.
You have to get rid of the parenthesis before moving on.
So, what you gonna do? 48/2x12? That is not the same as 48/2(12).
All you dudes asking your professors, ask them why the parenthesis remains when the whole point of P is to take care of the parenthesis.
Now if you had a problem that read 48/2x(9+3)...it would be easy to get rid of the parenthetical. Just add what's inside. There is no coefficient (greater than 1) attached to it. The problem at hand, there is.
dmoney82
Banned
- 5,482
- 18
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
Everything else gets LOCKED though. SMH
dmoney82
Banned
- 5,482
- 18
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
Everything else gets LOCKED though. SMH
- 643
- 14
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
This is why I love math
- 643
- 14
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
This is why I love math
- 563
- 39
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
Should of just saved yourself and just joined either the 2 or 288 team.
- 563
- 39
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
Should of just saved yourself and just joined either the 2 or 288 team.
- 959
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
Word... @## was you thinkin homie?
- 959
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
Word... @## was you thinkin homie?
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
When did you ever see a problem written as a÷*b(c+d)? or a*÷b(c+d)Originally Posted by 36hypno
So by whatever theorem you have developed x(x+3)^2 would have a different result than x*(x+3)^2 right because the x is somehow attached? For those saying that the 2(9+3) is factoring out the 2 from (18+6) you are incorrect.. If that were the case then the term would be 48/(2(9+3)). Look at it from algebraic terms ex. x/(2x+6). When you factor out you are essentially multiplying by (2/2) which would result in 2*(x+3). Yes, that is a multiplication symbol because distributing terms is indeed multiplication. The term would then be x/(2*(x+3)). The parenthesis around the entire term is the only way it remains in the denominator. otherwise the equation is screwed and incorrect.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
No it shouldn't because AGAIN, w[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]hat you fail and refuse 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 firs[/color][color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]t before you proceed with the rest of the problem. [/color]Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
There is actually an implied/mostly invisible parenthesis around any terms thats why they are "terms". so the problem shoud turn into (4
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]NEVER.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]You can only divide OR multiply.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]. [/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
When did you ever see a problem written as a÷*b(c+d)? or a*÷b(c+d)Originally Posted by 36hypno
So by whatever theorem you have developed x(x+3)^2 would have a different result than x*(x+3)^2 right because the x is somehow attached? For those saying that the 2(9+3) is factoring out the 2 from (18+6) you are incorrect.. If that were the case then the term would be 48/(2(9+3)). Look at it from algebraic terms ex. x/(2x+6). When you factor out you are essentially multiplying by (2/2) which would result in 2*(x+3). Yes, that is a multiplication symbol because distributing terms is indeed multiplication. The term would then be x/(2*(x+3)). The parenthesis around the entire term is the only way it remains in the denominator. otherwise the equation is screwed and incorrect.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
No it shouldn't because AGAIN, w[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]hat you fail and refuse 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 firs[/color][color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]t before you proceed with the rest of the problem. [/color]Originally Posted by usainboltisfast
There is actually an implied/mostly invisible parenthesis around any terms thats why they are "terms". so the problem shoud turn into (4
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]NEVER.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]You can only divide OR multiply.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]. [/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
jchambers
Banned
- 5,282
- 2,025
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
jchambers
Banned
- 5,282
- 2,025
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- 2,791
- 11
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2002
It's 2
- 2,791
- 11
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2002
It's 2
- 8,259
- 573
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
It's 288 though
- 8,259
- 573
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
It's 288 though
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
For those who still insist on 288 you need more than low electric currents to stimulate your brains.
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
For those who still insist on 288 you need more than low electric currents to stimulate your brains.
This is useless. For the people who continue to say the answer is 2, I really don't know how you guys got through middle school. This kind of stuff is very basic; all you 2 sayers are just making it harder for yourselves. If you guys ask your college math professors or high school teachers, I'm sure 99% of them will say the answer is 288. But yeah, continue to believe in whatever theories that "float your boat." There's no good in going back and forth when one's opinions are already set in stone.
This is useless. For the people who continue to say the answer is 2, I really don't know how you guys got through middle school. This kind of stuff is very basic; all you 2 sayers are just making it harder for yourselves. If you guys ask your college math professors or high school teachers, I'm sure 99% of them will say the answer is 288. But yeah, continue to believe in whatever theories that "float your boat." There's no good in going back and forth when one's opinions are already set in stone.
- 8,259
- 573
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
Okay Crux.
- 8,259
- 573
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
Okay Crux.