48÷2(9+3) = ???

[limitedretroog]

By the way,
48
--------- =/= 48÷2(9+3) They're two completely different equations.
2(9+3)

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

If this is true then why is there no evidence online supporting this claim that the division symbol separates an entire equation into 2 terms?

Division is now separation?

You telling me that my note is false.

Do you really lack that much comprehension i am talking about separation the numerator and denominator. According to you the division symbols adds parenthesis around the 2 parts of the equation . One set to the left of the division symbol another set to the right of the symbol. If that is the case why cant you show an example from someone NOT YOU that proves this indication and turns a problem the the division symbol into a fraction.

Wow.

This is the same as your post earlier.

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10757645/48-2-9-3-

It never ends!

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

If this is true then why is there no evidence online supporting this claim that the division symbol separates an entire equation into 2 terms?

Division is now separation?

You telling me that my note is false.

Do you really lack that much comprehension i am talking about separation the numerator and denominator. According to you the division symbols adds parenthesis around the 2 parts of the equation . One set to the left of the division symbol another set to the right of the symbol. If that is the case why cant you show an example from someone NOT YOU that proves this indication and turns a problem the the division symbol into a fraction.

Wow.

This is the same as your post earlier.

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10757645/48-2-9-3-

It never ends!

 

[elcatfisho]

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

There is nothing ambiguous about the equation.
÷ means division. + means addition. Juxtaposition means multiplication. If that's so hard, put a damn x in between the 2 and the () and you'll still get the exact same equation.
Order of operations states parenthesis, exponents, multiplication/division (whichever comes first from left to right), addition/subtraction (whichever comes first from left to right)
There's no ambiguity in this equation. The people who think there is are overanalyzing the equation and making it more difficult than it's supposed to be.

Originally I thought it could be solved two ways, but if you strictly follow left --> right procedure then 288 is what should be the answer.

I am not sure why people are putting this equation into fractions and simplifying it from there.

Agreeing on that; there should be no need to complicate or rearrange the equation as it should be left as is to solve.

 

[elcatfisho]

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

There is nothing ambiguous about the equation.
÷ means division. + means addition. Juxtaposition means multiplication. If that's so hard, put a damn x in between the 2 and the () and you'll still get the exact same equation.
Order of operations states parenthesis, exponents, multiplication/division (whichever comes first from left to right), addition/subtraction (whichever comes first from left to right)
There's no ambiguity in this equation. The people who think there is are overanalyzing the equation and making it more difficult than it's supposed to be.

Originally I thought it could be solved two ways, but if you strictly follow left --> right procedure then 288 is what should be the answer.

I am not sure why people are putting this equation into fractions and simplifying it from there.

Agreeing on that; there should be no need to complicate or rearrange the equation as it should be left as is to solve.

 

[il prescelto]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by il prescelto

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Why would you even use 2+3 and 6 as examples when there's no need to put them in ( )?

Come up with a real problem showing ( ) used for something else other than multiplication then we'll talk

Your math skills =

*

(

+

)

Because they prove my point. Are you saying (2+3) and (6) are mathematically incorrect expressions? Get a life dude.
And you still haven't told me where the multiplication lies in (6).

Since you insist, though, here: (2+3)/5. The parentheses are needed, since (2+3)/5 simplifies to 1, whereas 2+3/5 simplifies to 13/5.

You really thought the sole purpose of parentheses was to indicate multiplication?

... Who let you graduate from college? lol

They don't prove your point. You just want it to seem that way to favor your WRONG interpretation. At least provide a REAL example like (2+3) - (6+1) = 
No multiplication needed, right? WRONG. You multiply 2 and 3 with positive 1,  multiply 6 and 1 with negative 1 before proceeding. 

You don't need ( ) when the problem is clearly written as 2+3 , 2 + 3 or 2  + 3 because again, there is no need for them, just like your previous examples. 

                                5            5     5

Are you saying my examples were mathematically incorrect? (2+3) is incorrect notation?... I know I don't need parentheses, but I can put however many parentheses I want, breh.
Okay, how much multiplication is in this: ((((((((((2+5)))))))))) ?
Is that 2+5 multipled by 1 ten times? ....

The truth is that the original problem is ambiguous, and both 2 and 288 can be argued. However, whether you get 2 or 288 depends solely on whether you work right to left or left to right. Since there actually is no mathematical rule which states you must work in any particular direction, both cases can be argued. I side with 288 since all computer languages (C+, C++, Java, etc.) work left to right, which is why programs like Google and WolframAlpha say 288; in addition, by convention most people are taught to work left to right.

What I do have a problem with, however, are the people who support either answer by making mathematical arguments which are wrong. So Kingcrux, I don't care if you say the answer is 2. But your answer loses all credibility the minute you say something like "parentheses necessarily imply multiplication".

Do you honestly think parentheses were created to indicate multiplication? In case you didn't know, parentheses were first created to ensure that stuff within them was computed first; over time, though, they have come to also imply multiplication because mathematicians are lazy and prefer shorthand notation. Writing Y x (X) was abbreviated to Y(X).

Saying that parentheses serve the sole purpose of indicating multiplication is wrong. Like I said, I can write 1+(2+3), and there's no multiplication whatsoever, only addition. And making the argument that (2+3) is really 1 multiplied by 2+3 is silly, since anything multiplied by 1 is equal to itself (X x 1 = X). I could just as easily say that the 2+3 is divided by 1. Do parentheses indicate division, as well?

I honestly think you must have some kind of mental ******ation or something. I think you're the ONLY person in this thread who thinks parentheses necessarily indicate multiplication. Where did you learn how to do math?

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Division is now separation?

You telling me that my note is false.

Do you really lack that much comprehension i am talking about separation the numerator and denominator. According to you the division symbols adds parenthesis around the 2 parts of the equation . One set to the left of the division symbol another set to the right of the symbol. If that is the case why cant you show an example from someone NOT YOU that proves this indication and turns a problem the the division symbol into a fraction.

Wow.

This is the same as your post earlier.

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10757645/48-2-9-3-

It never ends!

You have yet to prove me wrong. Where your sources at b?

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Division is now separation?

You telling me that my note is false.

Do you really lack that much comprehension i am talking about separation the numerator and denominator. According to you the division symbols adds parenthesis around the 2 parts of the equation . One set to the left of the division symbol another set to the right of the symbol. If that is the case why cant you show an example from someone NOT YOU that proves this indication and turns a problem the the division symbol into a fraction.

Wow.

This is the same as your post earlier.

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10757645/48-2-9-3-

It never ends!

You have yet to prove me wrong. Where your sources at b?

 

[il prescelto]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by il prescelto

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Why would you even use 2+3 and 6 as examples when there's no need to put them in ( )?

Come up with a real problem showing ( ) used for something else other than multiplication then we'll talk

Your math skills =

*

(

+

)

Because they prove my point. Are you saying (2+3) and (6) are mathematically incorrect expressions? Get a life dude.
And you still haven't told me where the multiplication lies in (6).

Since you insist, though, here: (2+3)/5. The parentheses are needed, since (2+3)/5 simplifies to 1, whereas 2+3/5 simplifies to 13/5.

You really thought the sole purpose of parentheses was to indicate multiplication?

... Who let you graduate from college? lol

They don't prove your point. You just want it to seem that way to favor your WRONG interpretation. At least provide a REAL example like (2+3) - (6+1) = 
No multiplication needed, right? WRONG. You multiply 2 and 3 with positive 1,  multiply 6 and 1 with negative 1 before proceeding. 

You don't need ( ) when the problem is clearly written as 2+3 , 2 + 3 or 2  + 3 because again, there is no need for them, just like your previous examples. 

                                5            5     5

Are you saying my examples were mathematically incorrect? (2+3) is incorrect notation?... I know I don't need parentheses, but I can put however many parentheses I want, breh.
Okay, how much multiplication is in this: ((((((((((2+5)))))))))) ?
Is that 2+5 multipled by 1 ten times? ....

The truth is that the original problem is ambiguous, and both 2 and 288 can be argued. However, whether you get 2 or 288 depends solely on whether you work right to left or left to right. Since there actually is no mathematical rule which states you must work in any particular direction, both cases can be argued. I side with 288 since all computer languages (C+, C++, Java, etc.) work left to right, which is why programs like Google and WolframAlpha say 288; in addition, by convention most people are taught to work left to right.

What I do have a problem with, however, are the people who support either answer by making mathematical arguments which are wrong. So Kingcrux, I don't care if you say the answer is 2. But your answer loses all credibility the minute you say something like "parentheses necessarily imply multiplication".

Do you honestly think parentheses were created to indicate multiplication? In case you didn't know, parentheses were first created to ensure that stuff within them was computed first; over time, though, they have come to also imply multiplication because mathematicians are lazy and prefer shorthand notation. Writing Y x (X) was abbreviated to Y(X).

Saying that parentheses serve the sole purpose of indicating multiplication is wrong. Like I said, I can write 1+(2+3), and there's no multiplication whatsoever, only addition. And making the argument that (2+3) is really 1 multiplied by 2+3 is silly, since anything multiplied by 1 is equal to itself (X x 1 = X). I could just as easily say that the 2+3 is divided by 1. Do parentheses indicate division, as well?

I honestly think you must have some kind of mental ******ation or something. I think you're the ONLY person in this thread who thinks parentheses necessarily indicate multiplication. Where did you learn how to do math?

 

[ducky quack]

Hmm.. '÷' could be interpreted as fraction, but if we go back to basic math, it is basically just this symbol: √

 

[ducky quack]

Hmm.. '÷' could be interpreted as fraction, but if we go back to basic math, it is basically just this symbol: √

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by ElCatfisho

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

There is nothing ambiguous about the equation.
÷ means division. + means addition. Juxtaposition means multiplication. If that's so hard, put a damn x in between the 2 and the () and you'll still get the exact same equation.
Order of operations states parenthesis, exponents, multiplication/division (whichever comes first from left to right), addition/subtraction (whichever comes first from left to right)
There's no ambiguity in this equation. The people who think there is are overanalyzing the equation and making it more difficult than it's supposed to be.

Originally I thought it could be solved two ways, but if you strictly follow left --> right procedure then 288 is what should be the answer.

I am not sure why people are putting this equation into fractions and simplifying it from there.

Agreeing on that; there should be no need to complicate or rearrange the equation as it should be left as is to solve.

You got the easy part right, now the hard part is proving this to KingCrux aka IWriteMyOwnMathLaws

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by ElCatfisho

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

There is nothing ambiguous about the equation.
÷ means division. + means addition. Juxtaposition means multiplication. If that's so hard, put a damn x in between the 2 and the () and you'll still get the exact same equation.
Order of operations states parenthesis, exponents, multiplication/division (whichever comes first from left to right), addition/subtraction (whichever comes first from left to right)
There's no ambiguity in this equation. The people who think there is are overanalyzing the equation and making it more difficult than it's supposed to be.

Originally I thought it could be solved two ways, but if you strictly follow left --> right procedure then 288 is what should be the answer.

I am not sure why people are putting this equation into fractions and simplifying it from there.

Agreeing on that; there should be no need to complicate or rearrange the equation as it should be left as is to solve.

You got the easy part right, now the hard part is proving this to KingCrux aka IWriteMyOwnMathLaws

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by Ducky Quack

Hmm.. '÷' could be interpreted as fraction, but if we go back to basic math, it is basically just this symbol: √

The thing is where does it say that ÷ indicates a fraction combining all the terms and separating numerator and denominator with the division symbol.I have searched everywhere and have yet to find a source to agree with that statement.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by Ducky Quack

Hmm.. '÷' could be interpreted as fraction, but if we go back to basic math, it is basically just this symbol: √

The thing is where does it say that ÷ indicates a fraction combining all the terms and separating numerator and denominator with the division symbol.I have searched everywhere and have yet to find a source to agree with that statement.

 

[seasoned vet]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by Ducky Quack

Hmm.. '÷' could be interpreted as fraction, but if we go back to basic math, it is basically just this symbol: √

The thing is where does it say that ÷ indicates a fraction combining all the terms and separating numerator and denominator with the division symbol.I have searched everywhere and have yet to find a source to agree with that statement.

 
- i feel sorry for your HS math teacher.
 
 

 

[seasoned vet]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by Ducky Quack

Hmm.. '÷' could be interpreted as fraction, but if we go back to basic math, it is basically just this symbol: √

The thing is where does it say that ÷ indicates a fraction combining all the terms and separating numerator and denominator with the division symbol.I have searched everywhere and have yet to find a source to agree with that statement.

 
- i feel sorry for your HS math teacher.
 
 

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Do you really lack that much comprehension i am talking about separation the numerator and denominator. According to you the division symbols adds parenthesis around the 2 parts of the equation . One set to the left of the division symbol another set to the right of the symbol. If that is the case why cant you show an example from someone NOT YOU that proves this indication and turns a problem the the division symbol into a fraction.

Wow.

This is the same as your post earlier.

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10757645/48-2-9-3-

It never ends!

You have yet to prove me wrong. Where your sources at b?

You need a source to tell you how fractions are related to division and vice-versa?

I know I'm not the only one seeing this.

Stop the ignorance because I wasn't the only one who called you out on this. 

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Do you really lack that much comprehension i am talking about separation the numerator and denominator. According to you the division symbols adds parenthesis around the 2 parts of the equation . One set to the left of the division symbol another set to the right of the symbol. If that is the case why cant you show an example from someone NOT YOU that proves this indication and turns a problem the the division symbol into a fraction.

Wow.

This is the same as your post earlier.

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10757645/48-2-9-3-

It never ends!

You have yet to prove me wrong. Where your sources at b?

You need a source to tell you how fractions are related to division and vice-versa?

I know I'm not the only one seeing this.

Stop the ignorance because I wasn't the only one who called you out on this. 

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by Ducky Quack

Hmm.. '÷' could be interpreted as fraction, but if we go back to basic math, it is basically just this symbol: √

The thing is where does it say that ÷ indicates a fraction combining all the terms and separating numerator and denominator with the division symbol.I have searched everywhere and have yet to find a source to agree with that statement.

 
- i feel sorry for your HS math teacher.
 
 

* DEAD *

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by Ducky Quack

Hmm.. '÷' could be interpreted as fraction, but if we go back to basic math, it is basically just this symbol: √

The thing is where does it say that ÷ indicates a fraction combining all the terms and separating numerator and denominator with the division symbol.I have searched everywhere and have yet to find a source to agree with that statement.

 
- i feel sorry for your HS math teacher.
 
 

* DEAD *

 

[elcatfisho]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by ElCatfisho

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

There is nothing ambiguous about the equation.
÷ means division. + means addition. Juxtaposition means multiplication. If that's so hard, put a damn x in between the 2 and the () and you'll still get the exact same equation.
Order of operations states parenthesis, exponents, multiplication/division (whichever comes first from left to right), addition/subtraction (whichever comes first from left to right)
There's no ambiguity in this equation. The people who think there is are overanalyzing the equation and making it more difficult than it's supposed to be.

Originally I thought it could be solved two ways, but if you strictly follow left --> right procedure then 288 is what should be the answer.

I am not sure why people are putting this equation into fractions and simplifying it from there.

Agreeing on that; there should be no need to complicate or rearrange the equation as it should be left as is to solve.

You got the easy part right, now the hard part is proving this to KingCrux aka IWriteMyOwnMathLaws

Rather start my calculus homework....

Taylor gang polynomials

but not really, #@%% that %#*$

 

[elcatfisho]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by ElCatfisho

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

There is nothing ambiguous about the equation.
÷ means division. + means addition. Juxtaposition means multiplication. If that's so hard, put a damn x in between the 2 and the () and you'll still get the exact same equation.
Order of operations states parenthesis, exponents, multiplication/division (whichever comes first from left to right), addition/subtraction (whichever comes first from left to right)
There's no ambiguity in this equation. The people who think there is are overanalyzing the equation and making it more difficult than it's supposed to be.

Originally I thought it could be solved two ways, but if you strictly follow left --> right procedure then 288 is what should be the answer.

I am not sure why people are putting this equation into fractions and simplifying it from there.

Agreeing on that; there should be no need to complicate or rearrange the equation as it should be left as is to solve.

You got the easy part right, now the hard part is proving this to KingCrux aka IWriteMyOwnMathLaws

Rather start my calculus homework....

Taylor gang polynomials

but not really, #@%% that %#*$

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Wow.

This is the same as your post earlier.

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10757645/48-2-9-3-

It never ends!

You have yet to prove me wrong. Where your sources at b?

You need a source to tell you how fractions are related to division and vice-versa?

I know I'm not the only one seeing this.

Stop the ignorance because I wasn't the only one who called you out on this. 

You cant read. You guys are adding parenthesis to this problem to create a fraction for the overall problem. According to you the division symbol takes the 48 and makes it the numeraotr and takes 2(9+3) as the denominator. You still think that 2(9+3) is one term. The division symbol doesn't turn that into one term like you think. It only tells you to divide to the next term. 2 and (9+3) are sepearte terms. If they were one term  it would be indicated by another set of parenthesis.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Wow.

This is the same as your post earlier.

http://niketalk.yuku.com/sreply/10757645/48-2-9-3-

It never ends!

You have yet to prove me wrong. Where your sources at b?

You need a source to tell you how fractions are related to division and vice-versa?

I know I'm not the only one seeing this.

Stop the ignorance because I wasn't the only one who called you out on this. 

You cant read. You guys are adding parenthesis to this problem to create a fraction for the overall problem. According to you the division symbol takes the 48 and makes it the numeraotr and takes 2(9+3) as the denominator. You still think that 2(9+3) is one term. The division symbol doesn't turn that into one term like you think. It only tells you to divide to the next term. 2 and (9+3) are sepearte terms. If they were one term  it would be indicated by another set of parenthesis.