48÷2(9+3) = ???

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

What are you talking about an equation is an equation. Order of operations is the way to solve equations not a specific equation. You guys are STILL multiplying before you divide what is the problem with my answer?

PEMDAS is for simplifying terms.

when solving for X you can go in any order so long as you dont disrupt the balance of an equation.

if i have 5x+4= 2, i can either divide both sides by 5 first or subtract 4. it doesn't matter which i do first because im not unbalancing the equation when attempting to isolate x

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

At you skipped an entire step

48 ÷ x(9+3) =288
48÷ x(12)
(48/x)(12)

You are again multiplying before dividing. That is the proper way to work it out under order of operations.

This can't be real life. We don't treat two-step equations the same as order of operations equations.

You isolate the x to solve for it. PEMDAS doesn't matter here.

Please point out how I did something wrong. What is your justification for multiplying the 12 by x rather than dividing 48 into x? You are saying to multiply before divide again which is WRONG. Order of operations applies for ALL problems.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze


And yet you couldn't answer a simple YES or NO question.

Aint no one trying to infer what you're trying to say based of what you write.

I asked a simple question and a YES or NO would have sufficed as an answer.

YES or NO, is there a difference between those two equations, which I wrote earlier equal?


...

This guy.

Why you avoiding a simple YES or NO answer...

You think you slick huh...*%## outta here...

Like I said earlier,

...

My note CLEARLY shows my answer to your question. If you can't understand it then you shouldn't even be in this thread.

The problem with the youth nowadays is that you rely too much on technology (Google, Wolfram Alpha, calculator) to solve simple math problems and try to pass if off as learned knowledge. 

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze


And yet you couldn't answer a simple YES or NO question.

Aint no one trying to infer what you're trying to say based of what you write.

I asked a simple question and a YES or NO would have sufficed as an answer.

YES or NO, is there a difference between those two equations, which I wrote earlier equal?


...

This guy.

Why you avoiding a simple YES or NO answer...

You think you slick huh...*%## outta here...

Like I said earlier,

...

My note CLEARLY shows my answer to your question. If you can't understand it then you shouldn't even be in this thread.

The problem with the youth nowadays is that you rely too much on technology (Google, Wolfram Alpha, calculator) to solve simple math problems and try to pass if off as learned knowledge. 

 

[durden7]

This thread has gone from funny to pathetic.

 

[durden7]

This thread has gone from funny to pathetic.

 

[balloonoboy]

What are you talking about? It was assumed I wasn't talking about numeric value, since I was responding to UncleTomCruze when he asked about difference. I'm not backtracking. Just had to make it clear to you slow, Radio dudes.

 

[balloonoboy]

What are you talking about? It was assumed I wasn't talking about numeric value, since I was responding to UncleTomCruze when he asked about difference. I'm not backtracking. Just had to make it clear to you slow, Radio dudes.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

What are you talking about an equation is an equation. Order of operations is the way to solve equations not a specific equation. You guys are STILL multiplying before you divide what is the problem with my answer?

PEMDAS is for simplifying terms.

when solving for X you can go in any order so long as you dont disrupt the balance of an equation.

if i have 5x+4= 2, i can either divide both sides by 5 first or subtract 4. it doesn't matter which i do first because im not unbalancing the equation when attempting to isolate x

According to you it doesnt matter so my way is not wrong and you are saying that it is possible to be both. Now int he original problem there is NO variable so according to you it WOULD matter in this situation since we are simplifying terms correct?

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

What are you talking about an equation is an equation. Order of operations is the way to solve equations not a specific equation. You guys are STILL multiplying before you divide what is the problem with my answer?

PEMDAS is for simplifying terms.

when solving for X you can go in any order so long as you dont disrupt the balance of an equation.

if i have 5x+4= 2, i can either divide both sides by 5 first or subtract 4. it doesn't matter which i do first because im not unbalancing the equation when attempting to isolate x

According to you it doesnt matter so my way is not wrong and you are saying that it is possible to be both. Now int he original problem there is NO variable so according to you it WOULD matter in this situation since we are simplifying terms correct?

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

What are you talking about an equation is an equation. Order of operations is the way to solve equations not a specific equation. You guys are STILL multiplying before you divide what is the problem with my answer?

PEMDAS is for simplifying terms.

when solving for X you can go in any order so long as you dont disrupt the balance of an equation.

if i have 5x+4= 2, i can either divide both sides by 5 first or subtract 4. it doesn't matter which i do first because im not unbalancing the equation when attempting to isolate x

According to you it doesnt matter so my way is not wrong and you are saying that it is possible to be both. Now int he original problem there is NO variable so according to you it WOULD matter in this situation since we are simplifying terms correct?

excuse my piss poor example

the point is:

if you have 48÷x(9+3)= 288
you have to multiply x(9+3) by both sides because it is one complete term. once you do that, you are left with
48/1 which just equals 48, so the division is gone from the problem
48= 288(12x)
multiply the 288 and 12x to get 3456x
48= 3456x
divide both sides by 3456
48÷3456=x

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

What are you talking about an equation is an equation. Order of operations is the way to solve equations not a specific equation. You guys are STILL multiplying before you divide what is the problem with my answer?

PEMDAS is for simplifying terms.

when solving for X you can go in any order so long as you dont disrupt the balance of an equation.

if i have 5x+4= 2, i can either divide both sides by 5 first or subtract 4. it doesn't matter which i do first because im not unbalancing the equation when attempting to isolate x

According to you it doesnt matter so my way is not wrong and you are saying that it is possible to be both. Now int he original problem there is NO variable so according to you it WOULD matter in this situation since we are simplifying terms correct?

excuse my piss poor example

the point is:

if you have 48÷x(9+3)= 288
you have to multiply x(9+3) by both sides because it is one complete term. once you do that, you are left with
48/1 which just equals 48, so the division is gone from the problem
48= 288(12x)
multiply the 288 and 12x to get 3456x
48= 3456x
divide both sides by 3456
48÷3456=x

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

PEMDAS is for simplifying terms.

when solving for X you can go in any order so long as you dont disrupt the balance of an equation.

if i have 5x+4= 2, i can either divide both sides by 5 first or subtract 4. it doesn't matter which i do first because im not unbalancing the equation when attempting to isolate x

According to you it doesnt matter so my way is not wrong and you are saying that it is possible to be both. Now int he original problem there is NO variable so according to you it WOULD matter in this situation since we are simplifying terms correct?

excuse my piss poor example

the point is:

if you have 48÷x(9+3)= 288
you have to multiply x(9+3) by both sides because it is one complete term. once you do that, you are left with
48/1 which just equals 48, so the division is gone from the problem
48= 288(12x)
multiply the 288 and 12x to get 3456x
48= 3456x
divide both sides by 3456
48÷3456=x

You are forgetting to simplifying 9+3 first. Once you do that it becomes x(12). Like I said how can you say to multiply x by 12 instead for dividing 48 into x?

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

PEMDAS is for simplifying terms.

when solving for X you can go in any order so long as you dont disrupt the balance of an equation.

if i have 5x+4= 2, i can either divide both sides by 5 first or subtract 4. it doesn't matter which i do first because im not unbalancing the equation when attempting to isolate x

According to you it doesnt matter so my way is not wrong and you are saying that it is possible to be both. Now int he original problem there is NO variable so according to you it WOULD matter in this situation since we are simplifying terms correct?

excuse my piss poor example

the point is:

if you have 48÷x(9+3)= 288
you have to multiply x(9+3) by both sides because it is one complete term. once you do that, you are left with
48/1 which just equals 48, so the division is gone from the problem
48= 288(12x)
multiply the 288 and 12x to get 3456x
48= 3456x
divide both sides by 3456
48÷3456=x

You are forgetting to simplifying 9+3 first. Once you do that it becomes x(12). Like I said how can you say to multiply x by 12 instead for dividing 48 into x?

 

[balloonoboy]

Why are dudes multiplying x by both sides if we are solving for x?!!!1

Why move the x around if it's going to be on one side of the equation when all is said and done?

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

This guy.

Why you avoiding a simple YES or NO answer...

You think you slick huh...*%## outta here...

Like I said earlier,

...

My note CLEARLY shows my answer to your question. If you can't understand it then you shouldn't even be in this thread.

The problem with the youth nowadays is that you rely too much on technology (Google, Wolfram Alpha, calculator) to solve simple math problems and try to pass if off as learned knowledge. 

And the problem with all you old geezers nowadays, is that you're all stuck in the past.

My level of education thus far > everything you've done...don't play yourself.

I've posted my work multiple times in this thread...way before you came in here on your pen and paper bull...check the earlier pages...

The technology substantiates an answer of 288, that's why you're all salty and ishhhh.


...

 

[balloonoboy]

Why are dudes multiplying x by both sides if we are solving for x?!!!1

Why move the x around if it's going to be on one side of the equation when all is said and done?

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

This guy.

Why you avoiding a simple YES or NO answer...

You think you slick huh...*%## outta here...

Like I said earlier,

...

My note CLEARLY shows my answer to your question. If you can't understand it then you shouldn't even be in this thread.

The problem with the youth nowadays is that you rely too much on technology (Google, Wolfram Alpha, calculator) to solve simple math problems and try to pass if off as learned knowledge. 

And the problem with all you old geezers nowadays, is that you're all stuck in the past.

My level of education thus far > everything you've done...don't play yourself.

I've posted my work multiple times in this thread...way before you came in here on your pen and paper bull...check the earlier pages...

The technology substantiates an answer of 288, that's why you're all salty and ishhhh.


...

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Why are dudes multiplying x by both sides if we are solving for x?!!!1

Why move the x around if it's going to be on one side of the equation when all is said and done?

Why are you multiplying x by 12 instead of dividing 48 into x?

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by balloonoboy

Why are dudes multiplying x by both sides if we are solving for x?!!!1

Why move the x around if it's going to be on one side of the equation when all is said and done?

Why are you multiplying x by 12 instead of dividing 48 into x?

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze


Why you avoiding a simple YES or NO answer...

You think you slick huh...*%## outta here...

Like I said earlier,

...

My note CLEARLY shows my answer to your question. If you can't understand it then you shouldn't even be in this thread.

The problem with the youth nowadays is that you rely too much on technology (Google, Wolfram Alpha, calculator) to solve simple math problems and try to pass if off as learned knowledge. 

And the problem with all you old geezers nowadays, is that you're all stuck in the past.

My level of education thus far > everything you've done...don't play yourself.

I've posted my work multiple times in this thread...way before you came in here on your pen and paper bull...check the earlier pages...

The technology substantiates an answer of 288, that's why you're all salty and ishhhh.


...

The ignorance and arrogance.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze


Why you avoiding a simple YES or NO answer...

You think you slick huh...*%## outta here...

Like I said earlier,

...

My note CLEARLY shows my answer to your question. If you can't understand it then you shouldn't even be in this thread.

The problem with the youth nowadays is that you rely too much on technology (Google, Wolfram Alpha, calculator) to solve simple math problems and try to pass if off as learned knowledge. 

And the problem with all you old geezers nowadays, is that you're all stuck in the past.

My level of education thus far > everything you've done...don't play yourself.

I've posted my work multiple times in this thread...way before you came in here on your pen and paper bull...check the earlier pages...

The technology substantiates an answer of 288, that's why you're all salty and ishhhh.


...

The ignorance and arrogance.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

According to you it doesnt matter so my way is not wrong and you are saying that it is possible to be both. Now int he original problem there is NO variable so according to you it WOULD matter in this situation since we are simplifying terms correct?

excuse my piss poor example

the point is:

if you have 48÷x(9+3)= 288
you have to multiply x(9+3) by both sides because it is one complete term. once you do that, you are left with
48/1 which just equals 48, so the division is gone from the problem
48= 288(12x)
multiply the 288 and 12x to get 3456x
48= 3456x
divide both sides by 3456
48÷3456=x

You are forgetting to simplifying 9+3 first. Once you do that it becomes x(12). Like I said how can you say to multiply x by 12 instead for dividing 48 into x?

because there isn't a multiplication sign separating the x and (9+3), making it one term. if it said 48÷ x * (12) then you would only multiply x by both sides, but as it stands, on one side you have 48 over x(12) or when simplified, 12x. now that you have 48 over 12x you multiply both sides by 12x 

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

According to you it doesnt matter so my way is not wrong and you are saying that it is possible to be both. Now int he original problem there is NO variable so according to you it WOULD matter in this situation since we are simplifying terms correct?

excuse my piss poor example

the point is:

if you have 48÷x(9+3)= 288
you have to multiply x(9+3) by both sides because it is one complete term. once you do that, you are left with
48/1 which just equals 48, so the division is gone from the problem
48= 288(12x)
multiply the 288 and 12x to get 3456x
48= 3456x
divide both sides by 3456
48÷3456=x

You are forgetting to simplifying 9+3 first. Once you do that it becomes x(12). Like I said how can you say to multiply x by 12 instead for dividing 48 into x?

because there isn't a multiplication sign separating the x and (9+3), making it one term. if it said 48÷ x * (12) then you would only multiply x by both sides, but as it stands, on one side you have 48 over x(12) or when simplified, 12x. now that you have 48 over 12x you multiply both sides by 12x 

 

[balloonoboy]

And UncleTomCruze, you've said multiple times in the thread the answer can be 2, 8.6(repeating), or 288.

Your argument for choosing 288 over the other two is because you said using distribution yields two possible answers, whereas sttict PEMDAS yields only 288.

But you do agree that there are a possibility of three answers, but you still champion 288. That's a $$%!% move. Stand by your word and say that the answer is undefinable.

I don't know why no one called your !%! out on that earlier. Pitiful.