48÷2(9+3) = ???

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by cesarhpr1986

Originally Posted by MECKS

Originally Posted by Klipschorn

Again, you multiplied before you divide.  WRONG.  my "info" still stands.  Cite some legitimate sources that proves me wrong otherwise. You're suppose to evaluate left to right as there are division and multiplication present because they're of the same rank.

LOL!







At this point, i'm assuming TEAM 2 don't trust google (wolfram, bing, any search giant) or TI calculators anymore because it can't perform simple arithmetic problem(s)?

true or false
a(b+c) can be written as (ab+bc) ?

following this logic. you have to do the a(b+c) first, because its a division symbol. not / which would have made it 48/2 or 24/1 (a fraction)

FALSE
a(b+c) can be written as ab+ac

    

Already schooled him on it but you are either the first or 2nd person outside of me that understands distribution. So for that I give you props.

 

[do work son]

48÷2(9+3)

this is clearly a division problem, but team 288 is trying to make it (48/2)*(9+3)

why do you think there is no multiplication sign in the problem, and the only one you get is the one you implied?

if the answer were to be 288, the problem would have to be written as 48÷2*(9+3) = or (48/2)*(9+3)....but it's not

it's written 48÷2(9+3). the division sign is what is used to find your numerator and denominator . if there was a multiplication between the 2 and (9+3) you would then multiply 48÷2 and (9+3). but there isn't.

numerator= 48
denominator= 2(9+3)

simplify both terms, and then do the division as stated in the og problem

 

[do work son]

48÷2(9+3)

this is clearly a division problem, but team 288 is trying to make it (48/2)*(9+3)

why do you think there is no multiplication sign in the problem, and the only one you get is the one you implied?

if the answer were to be 288, the problem would have to be written as 48÷2*(9+3) = or (48/2)*(9+3)....but it's not

it's written 48÷2(9+3). the division sign is what is used to find your numerator and denominator . if there was a multiplication between the 2 and (9+3) you would then multiply 48÷2 and (9+3). but there isn't.

numerator= 48
denominator= 2(9+3)

simplify both terms, and then do the division as stated in the og problem

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

48÷2(9+3)

this is clearly a division problem, but team 288 is trying to make it (48/2)*(9+3)

why do you think there is no multiplication sign in the problem, and the only one you get is the one you implied?

if the answer were to be 288, the problem would have to be written as 48÷2*(9+3) = or (48/2)*(9+3)....but it's not

it's written 48÷2(9+3). the division sign is what is used to find your numerator and denominator . if there was a multiplication between the 2 and (9+3) you would then multiply 48÷2 and (9+3). but there isn't.

numerator= 48
denominator= 2(9+3)

simplify both terms, and then do the division as stated in the og problem

Arent you the same dude who asked Danica McKellar? She already gave someone the answer

@crossurfingers A computer would say the answer is 288, which is technically the best answer, since order of op says do multi & div L to R.

Anyways to respond to what you are saying multiplication is implied by juxtaposition which is why you dont need the symbol. If 48 was supposed to be dividing into the rest of it wouldnt you agree the problem should have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to avoid such confusion? According to your theory in a situation like this (lets use variabes) ab is one term and not a*b. It is clear though that there are 3 separate terms in this problem 48, 2, and (9+3)

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

48÷2(9+3)

this is clearly a division problem, but team 288 is trying to make it (48/2)*(9+3)

why do you think there is no multiplication sign in the problem, and the only one you get is the one you implied?

if the answer were to be 288, the problem would have to be written as 48÷2*(9+3) = or (48/2)*(9+3)....but it's not

it's written 48÷2(9+3). the division sign is what is used to find your numerator and denominator . if there was a multiplication between the 2 and (9+3) you would then multiply 48÷2 and (9+3). but there isn't.

numerator= 48
denominator= 2(9+3)

simplify both terms, and then do the division as stated in the og problem

Arent you the same dude who asked Danica McKellar? She already gave someone the answer

@crossurfingers A computer would say the answer is 288, which is technically the best answer, since order of op says do multi & div L to R.

Anyways to respond to what you are saying multiplication is implied by juxtaposition which is why you dont need the symbol. If 48 was supposed to be dividing into the rest of it wouldnt you agree the problem should have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to avoid such confusion? According to your theory in a situation like this (lets use variabes) ab is one term and not a*b. It is clear though that there are 3 separate terms in this problem 48, 2, and (9+3)

 

[certifiedsw]

UnkleTomCruze wrote:

---

[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]Now This question goes to out to anyone and everyone championing an answer of 2; Is there a difference between:[/color]

[h3]48÷2(9+3) and 48÷ 2 x 1(9+3)[/h3]
I'll wait.


... 


SOMEONE FROM TEAM 2 ANSWER THIS.

I'll wait as well.

 

[certifiedsw]

UnkleTomCruze wrote:

---

[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]Now This question goes to out to anyone and everyone championing an answer of 2; Is there a difference between:[/color]

[h3]48÷2(9+3) and 48÷ 2 x 1(9+3)[/h3]
I'll wait.


... 


SOMEONE FROM TEAM 2 ANSWER THIS.

I'll wait as well.

 

[balloonoboy]

No they are not the same. With any number or parenthetical phrase we can assume that there is an implied 1 either in front of the number or as an exponent.

So, 1(9+3)^1 is the same as (9+3)

This would make 2(9+3)=/=2x1(9+3), since there is no implied 1 in 2(9+3), but a very clear and obvious 2.

 

[balloonoboy]

No they are not the same. With any number or parenthetical phrase we can assume that there is an implied 1 either in front of the number or as an exponent.

So, 1(9+3)^1 is the same as (9+3)

This would make 2(9+3)=/=2x1(9+3), since there is no implied 1 in 2(9+3), but a very clear and obvious 2.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

48÷2(9+3)

this is clearly a division problem, but team 288 is trying to make it (48/2)*(9+3)

why do you think there is no multiplication sign in the problem, and the only one you get is the one you implied?

if the answer were to be 288, the problem would have to be written as 48÷2*(9+3) = or (48/2)*(9+3)....but it's not

it's written 48÷2(9+3). the division sign is what is used to find your numerator and denominator . if there was a multiplication between the 2 and (9+3) you would then multiply 48÷2 and (9+3). but there isn't.

numerator= 48
denominator= 2(9+3)

simplify both terms, and then do the division as stated in the og problem

Arent you the same dude who asked Danica McKellar? She already gave someone the answer

@crossurfingers A computer would say the answer is 288, which is technically the best answer, since order of op says do multi & div L to R.

Anyways to respond to what you are saying multiplication is implied by juxtaposition which is why you dont need the symbol. If 48 was supposed to be dividing into the rest of it wouldnt you agree the problem should have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to avoid such confusion? According to your theory in a situation like this (lets use variabes) ab is one term and not a*b. It is clear though that there are 3 separate terms in this problem 48, 2, and (9+3)


no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?

 i agree it could have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to make it more clear, but as it stands there still isn't a multiplication sign between 2 and (9+3). although we all eventually imply that it's multiplication, there is a reason it isn't in the problem. the reason is to keep 2 and (9+3) grouped together, telling you have to fully simplify that term before you can do the division. you cant say 2 is it's own term because it isn't free standing. if the problem read 48÷2*(9+3) then i would agree there are 3 terms and not just 2

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

48÷2(9+3)

this is clearly a division problem, but team 288 is trying to make it (48/2)*(9+3)

why do you think there is no multiplication sign in the problem, and the only one you get is the one you implied?

if the answer were to be 288, the problem would have to be written as 48÷2*(9+3) = or (48/2)*(9+3)....but it's not

it's written 48÷2(9+3). the division sign is what is used to find your numerator and denominator . if there was a multiplication between the 2 and (9+3) you would then multiply 48÷2 and (9+3). but there isn't.

numerator= 48
denominator= 2(9+3)

simplify both terms, and then do the division as stated in the og problem

Arent you the same dude who asked Danica McKellar? She already gave someone the answer

@crossurfingers A computer would say the answer is 288, which is technically the best answer, since order of op says do multi & div L to R.

Anyways to respond to what you are saying multiplication is implied by juxtaposition which is why you dont need the symbol. If 48 was supposed to be dividing into the rest of it wouldnt you agree the problem should have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to avoid such confusion? According to your theory in a situation like this (lets use variabes) ab is one term and not a*b. It is clear though that there are 3 separate terms in this problem 48, 2, and (9+3)


no shots fired, but weren't you arguing against multiplication that is implied by juxtaposition?

 i agree it could have been written as 48÷(2(9+3)) to make it more clear, but as it stands there still isn't a multiplication sign between 2 and (9+3). although we all eventually imply that it's multiplication, there is a reason it isn't in the problem. the reason is to keep 2 and (9+3) grouped together, telling you have to fully simplify that term before you can do the division. you cant say 2 is it's own term because it isn't free standing. if the problem read 48÷2*(9+3) then i would agree there are 3 terms and not just 2

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

No they are not the same. With any number or parenthetical phrase we can assume that there is an implied 1 either in front of the number or as an exponent.

So, 1(9+3)^1 is the same as (9+3)

This would make 2(9+3)=/=2x1(9+3), since there is no implied 1 in 2(9+3), but a very clear and obvious 2.

Wow really? 

So 24 =/= 24 now huh? What a joke.

They are the EXACT SAME. On the 2 * 1(9+3) you can either go straight across or distribute the 1 into the problem and you still end up with 24.

Ya'll really just pulling some @#$# out of your !@#$# now, sit down. 

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

No they are not the same. With any number or parenthetical phrase we can assume that there is an implied 1 either in front of the number or as an exponent.

So, 1(9+3)^1 is the same as (9+3)

This would make 2(9+3)=/=2x1(9+3), since there is no implied 1 in 2(9+3), but a very clear and obvious 2.

Wow really? 

So 24 =/= 24 now huh? What a joke.

They are the EXACT SAME. On the 2 * 1(9+3) you can either go straight across or distribute the 1 into the problem and you still end up with 24.

Ya'll really just pulling some @#$# out of your !@#$# now, sit down. 

 

[balloonoboy]

Explain to me this? How can two numbers occupy one location?

I'll wait...

 

[balloonoboy]

Explain to me this? How can two numbers occupy one location?

I'll wait...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

No they are not the same. With any number or parenthetical phrase we can assume that there is an implied 1 either in front of the number or as an exponent.

So, 1(9+3)^1 is the same as (9+3)

This would make 2(9+3)=/=2x1(9+3), since there is no implied 1 in 2(9+3), but a very clear and obvious 2.

...seriously...this is quite honestly friggin sad....

...

At this point, it's to no avail to try and prove to you how wrong you are when you believe: 2(9+3)=/=2x1(9+3)

You're beyonndddd delusional, son.

...
 

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

No they are not the same. With any number or parenthetical phrase we can assume that there is an implied 1 either in front of the number or as an exponent.

So, 1(9+3)^1 is the same as (9+3)

This would make 2(9+3)=/=2x1(9+3), since there is no implied 1 in 2(9+3), but a very clear and obvious 2.

...seriously...this is quite honestly friggin sad....

...

At this point, it's to no avail to try and prove to you how wrong you are when you believe: 2(9+3)=/=2x1(9+3)

You're beyonndddd delusional, son.

...
 

 

[digitalo22]

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

UnkleTomCruze wrote:

---

[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]Now This question goes to out to anyone and everyone championing an answer of 2; Is there a difference between:[/color]

[h3]48÷2(9+3) and 48÷ 2 x 1(9+3)[/h3]
I'll wait.


... 

SOMEONE FROM TEAM 2 ANSWER THIS.

I'll wait as well.


yes, a big one.

 

[digitalo22]

Originally Posted by CertifiedSW

UnkleTomCruze wrote:

---

[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]Now This question goes to out to anyone and everyone championing an answer of 2; Is there a difference between:[/color]

[h3]48÷2(9+3) and 48÷ 2 x 1(9+3)[/h3]
I'll wait.


... 

SOMEONE FROM TEAM 2 ANSWER THIS.

I'll wait as well.


yes, a big one.

 

[kramer]

So today my calculus teacher who went to Harvard worked out the problem... Im on Team 288 now, sorry team 2

 

[kramer]

So today my calculus teacher who went to Harvard worked out the problem... Im on Team 288 now, sorry team 2

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

No they are not the same. With any number or parenthetical phrase we can assume that there is an implied 1 either in front of the number or as an exponent.

So, 1(9+3)^1 is the same as (9+3)

This would make 2(9+3)=/=2x1(9+3), since there is no implied 1 in 2(9+3), but a very clear and obvious 2.

...seriously...this is quite honestly friggin sad....

...

At this point, it's to no avail to try and prove to you how wrong you are when you believe: 2(9+3)=/=2x1(9+3)

You're beyonndddd delusional, son.

...
 

Dude has made the two worst posts in this thread 

This @#$# really is sad though, they're trying to come up with anything they can. Son has lost all of his common sense. 

After that one ballonoboy, I suggest you stop posting in here. 

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

No they are not the same. With any number or parenthetical phrase we can assume that there is an implied 1 either in front of the number or as an exponent.

So, 1(9+3)^1 is the same as (9+3)

This would make 2(9+3)=/=2x1(9+3), since there is no implied 1 in 2(9+3), but a very clear and obvious 2.

...seriously...this is quite honestly friggin sad....

...

At this point, it's to no avail to try and prove to you how wrong you are when you believe: 2(9+3)=/=2x1(9+3)

You're beyonndddd delusional, son.

...
 

Dude has made the two worst posts in this thread 

This @#$# really is sad though, they're trying to come up with anything they can. Son has lost all of his common sense. 

After that one ballonoboy, I suggest you stop posting in here. 

 

[balloonoboy]

@ anyone who thinks 2(9+3)=2x1(9+3)

Seriously. You were either asleep in algebra or are 12.

 

[balloonoboy]

@ anyone who thinks 2(9+3)=2x1(9+3)

Seriously. You were either asleep in algebra or are 12.