- 236
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
lol EInstein a crackhead now thats funny
48÷2(9+3) = ???
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by n1k3b4ller,
- Start date
- 236
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
lol EInstein a crackhead now thats funny
- 597
- 117
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2006
62 pages for a math problem
The answer is 2
The answer is 2
- 597
- 117
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2006
62 pages for a math problem
The answer is 2
The answer is 2
- 18,370
- 33,978
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
Originally Posted by KRS87
62 pages for a math problem
The answer is 2
You're the reason the Challenger crashed.
- 18,370
- 33,978
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
Originally Posted by KRS87
62 pages for a math problem
The answer is 2
You're the reason the Challenger crashed.
- 18,370
- 33,978
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
I mean, sure, if you're travelling the speed of light at the time, the answer is 2, but that's impossible due to the infinite amount of energy needed to generate such speeds on a nonzero mass.
- 18,370
- 33,978
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
I mean, sure, if you're travelling the speed of light at the time, the answer is 2, but that's impossible due to the infinite amount of energy needed to generate such speeds on a nonzero mass.
- 6,247
- 18
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
it would be 2 if:
48/[2(9+3)]
48/[2(9+3)]
- 6,247
- 18
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
it would be 2 if:
48/[2(9+3)]
48/[2(9+3)]
- 205
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2006
the thing about the rule of juxtaposition is that nobody would factor in the rule of juxtaposition for a quanity that doesn't involve a variable. like... 48/2x, okay yes the x belonged to the 2. it's not whether or not you believe in the rule of juxtaposition, because it does take precedence, but usually in quantities that have variables.
the way that the equation is written is 48/2x12. you're supposed to drop the parentheses after you do it.
- 205
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2006
the thing about the rule of juxtaposition is that nobody would factor in the rule of juxtaposition for a quanity that doesn't involve a variable. like... 48/2x, okay yes the x belonged to the 2. it's not whether or not you believe in the rule of juxtaposition, because it does take precedence, but usually in quantities that have variables.
the way that the equation is written is 48/2x12. you're supposed to drop the parentheses after you do it.
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
Why don't we add quantities in a real life scenario to this problem to see what the answer truly is,.
Say your equation for figuring out how much you get paid for a job is as follows :
(Service Fee=$48.00)(Half Off Discount)(Commission =$9.00 +Bonus $3.00)
What would the answer be?
Say your equation for figuring out how much you get paid for a job is as follows :
(Service Fee=$48.00)(Half Off Discount)(Commission =$9.00 +Bonus $3.00)
What would the answer be?
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
Why don't we add quantities in a real life scenario to this problem to see what the answer truly is,.
Say your equation for figuring out how much you get paid for a job is as follows :
(Service Fee=$48.00)(Half Off Discount)(Commission =$9.00 +Bonus $3.00)
What would the answer be?
Say your equation for figuring out how much you get paid for a job is as follows :
(Service Fee=$48.00)(Half Off Discount)(Commission =$9.00 +Bonus $3.00)
What would the answer be?
- 205
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2006
because the debate is over two ways to imagine organizing the problem which would work either way if you gave the numbers a scenario.
You can be counting in dollars or oreos and there would still be a debate on whether or not the (9+3) should go in the numerator or denominator.
- 205
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2006
because the debate is over two ways to imagine organizing the problem which would work either way if you gave the numbers a scenario.
You can be counting in dollars or oreos and there would still be a debate on whether or not the (9+3) should go in the numerator or denominator.
- 27,991
- 9,085
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
Couldnt disagree any stronger. In fact, this has been one of my favorite threads on NT in a long time. Nice to talk about something different IMO.
- 27,991
- 9,085
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
Couldnt disagree any stronger. In fact, this has been one of my favorite threads on NT in a long time. Nice to talk about something different IMO.
- 2,779
- 42
- Joined
- May 24, 2003
- 2,779
- 42
- Joined
- May 24, 2003
- 18,370
- 33,978
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
If you break it down, this is the same as any hotly contested thread on NT. Just like a debate on religion, Kobe vs. Calbert Chaeney, etc., there are two sides, unable to see eye-to-eye on some fundamental logic.
The question is, is debating the parenthesis on a math problem an advancement of human debate? Like is this what humans will go to war over in a thousand years? Or is this what people went to war over thousands of years ago? Like is zero a number? WAR. Is 1/0 infinity or undefined? NATO DECLARES WAR ON LIBYA. Are there an infinite number of prime numbers? TERRORISTS DECLARE WAR ON USA. 2 or 288? ALLIED FORCES INVADE NORMANDY.
- 18,370
- 33,978
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
If you break it down, this is the same as any hotly contested thread on NT. Just like a debate on religion, Kobe vs. Calbert Chaeney, etc., there are two sides, unable to see eye-to-eye on some fundamental logic.
The question is, is debating the parenthesis on a math problem an advancement of human debate? Like is this what humans will go to war over in a thousand years? Or is this what people went to war over thousands of years ago? Like is zero a number? WAR. Is 1/0 infinity or undefined? NATO DECLARES WAR ON LIBYA. Are there an infinite number of prime numbers? TERRORISTS DECLARE WAR ON USA. 2 or 288? ALLIED FORCES INVADE NORMANDY.
- 942
- 14
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2006
it's great to see a couple of more 2 to 288 converts...still not a single person has converted from 288 to 2.
there's still time for rest of ya'll...
- pay attention to the facts
- stop adding parentheses, instead of simply solving the problem as it was originally written
- stop using a 'rule of juxtaposition' when you can't cite three legitimate sources that state the rule actually exists
- follow the order of operations (PEDMAS) throughout the problem instead of only when it leads you to the answer you'd like to see...
team 288.
-waystinthyme
- 942
- 14
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2006
it's great to see a couple of more 2 to 288 converts...still not a single person has converted from 288 to 2.
there's still time for rest of ya'll...
- pay attention to the facts
- stop adding parentheses, instead of simply solving the problem as it was originally written
- stop using a 'rule of juxtaposition' when you can't cite three legitimate sources that state the rule actually exists
- follow the order of operations (PEDMAS) throughout the problem instead of only when it leads you to the answer you'd like to see...
team 288.
-waystinthyme
- 1,826
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
...