I never said it equaled 1. Go back and read the post..
I said..
10/5*2 = 4
and
10÷5(2)= 1
48÷2(9+3) = ????
- Thread starter nubian
- Start date
I never said it equaled 1. Go back and read the post..
I said..
10/5*2 = 4
and
10÷5(2)= 1
Yes. By itself it is.
but you add
d÷
to
a(b+c)
thereby making it d÷a(b+c)
and you fundamentally change the equation.
I see people are taking the ÷ and making it a / and calling it a fraction.
To that i say this
48÷2(9+3)
is 48÷2*(9+3)
why would the last equation be 100/(2(5)) what law of mathematics is that
just to be clear you are saying that this is not equal to 10, right?
____$100____
2(5)
2(5)
wait, so when you divide you don't make something a 'FRACTION' of what it formerly was?
that's a basic definition of what division is.
Ok Nathan, you're comng around.
You're right. You simply the parentheses first. I never said you don't.
So you simplify what's within the parentheses. (9+3) turns to (12)
And as it's been stated earlier, the function of the parentheses is to signify a group that must be addressed first, and/or indicate multiplication.
so then you can strip the () and go with a *
48÷2*12
the point of contention in this thread is
We have some posters who say yes, but we only have one source that says it, and not a strong enough source. If it does indeed take precedence then it would be easy to find other sources.
So I maintain the reason some people give it precedence is because in their mind they cannot do the first part, the 48÷2 without resolving the part of the equation that has no space. I honestly believe it's mental thing as they're drawn to solving the 2(12) simply because it's so close together.
i was laughing at @hole sonning himself because that's the only party that i was engaged with at the time. now, go pull up the earlier post where i expressly stated the two terms meant the same thing you simple assed one trick pony
You were the one who took it upon your self to go on the record and distance yourself from the other idiots, from whom you are still part of, that were arguing that bullshit.
There was a reason why you did this. If you weren't involved, why go on the record?
Nigga because you were on that bullshit.
Are you slow? Or just being obstinate?
I started by defining a, b, c as real
rolleyes scalars.Then asked what a/bc was and you responded
a/bc = a/(bc)
Which is wrong and if you substitute a=10, b=5, c=2, then you can prove this to yourself.
naw bruh, it's because that's how it was taught in school to some but obviously not all of us
The problem is youre mistaking the group.
You're grouping 2(9+3).
That is not a group.
You can argue that the 48÷2 is not a group, and that's fine.
But there is only one explicit group in this equation. (9+3).
Now you simplify the group, to (12) or just 12.
The same way people have something like this
a(b+c) by itself you do the distributive property and it works.
then people write it as so ab+ac. But you notice now you generally remove the parentheses.
So after bringing (9+3) to (12) you keep the () solely as a way of maintaining that there is multiplication.
But you can remove the () and replace it with a *.
We can just agree to disagree about that. To me they imply something different.
51 pages...
On a goddamn PORN WEBSITE!!!!!
On a goddamn PORN WEBSITE!!!!!
Oh, there's more than one source that comes to the same conclusion
Are you slow? Or just being obstinate?
I started by defining a, b, c as real
Then asked what a/bc was and you responded
a/bc = a/(bc)
Which is wrong and if you substitute a=10, b=5, c=2, then you can prove this to yourself.
i didn't agree with his point but you got off onto such a tangent that when you came back with that problem addressed to some other party i decided to fuck w/ your equation over there. as scalars, no they are not equal equations
No that's not what i'm saying.
Why is out so hard for you to understand what's being disputed here???
What's being disputed is the translation of the one-line equation to the multi-line equation. The one line equivalent to that equation is 100/(2*5) NOT 100/2*5.
The mathematical principle that says this is true is called "Order of Operations" or "PEMDAS" or "BOMDAS"
Got it?
a(b) implies multiplication.
nothing else.
you see how you eliminated the ()
you said a(b+c) equals ac+ab
why do you feel the need to keep the () for the 12, and consider it to be above division, when division and multiplication are of EQUAL precedence where you solve left to right.
Yep. But what I'm saying is after you Simplify the Parentheses and you have a number that's directly in front of it, you have to Multiply it by that number immediately. When you remove the Parentheses, it doesnt become an *. That's where the confusion comes in. I see how you're rationalizing it and I think it's just an ambiguous (as I denied earlier) topic. The real question here remains "Is implied Multiplication actually applied Multiplication"? Some were taught it is, some are taught that it isn't.
Are you slow? Or just being obstinate?
I started by defining a, b, c as real
Then asked what a/bc was and you responded
a/bc = a/(bc)
Which is wrong and if you substitute a=10, b=5, c=2, then you can prove this to yourself.
Are YOU slow? Or are you just being a pessimist?
I said a/bc =
Say it out loud, then go look up what division means.
I denied it also, I only saw it one way. I still stand by my answer, because that is how I was taught and everything that I have used backs up my answer, but there is no way we can deny that it is not ambiguous, when it seems like the whole internet is deadlocked. I understand rational behind the 2 as well.
i didn't agree with his point but you got off onto such a tangent that when you came back with that problem addressed to some other party i decided to fuck w/ your equation over there. as scalars, no they are not equal equations
Dude, I started a proof with you and lo and behold you started ignoring it.
Go back to the last question I asked YOU instead making all these sideline posts. Its obvious these other dudes don't get order of ops, I want to see if you do.
At least you can admit this much now
because there is no way that could be denied and anyone still denying that is failing the psychological test at minimum.
Last edited:
You were the one who took it upon your self to go on the record and distance yourself from the other idiots, from whom you are still part of, that were arguing that bullshit.
There was a reason why you did this. If you weren't involved, why go on the record?
Nigga because you were on that bullshit.
Exactly!
And the idiot doesn't realize that the pic he posted shows Mathway's response clearly makes a distinction between '/' and '÷'. He cosigned with his '/thread'.
His only out is to tell us he didn't understand what the fuck he was cosigning. lol.
Either way he's an idiot. @ least he's Gods_Idiot though.
Exactly!
And the idiot doesn't realize that the pic he posted shows Mathway's response clearly makes a distinction between '/' and '÷'. He cosigned with his '/thread'.
His only out is to tell us he didn't understand what the fuck he was cosigning. lol.
Either way he's an idiot. @ least he's Gods_Idiot though.
They fail to understand that there is no wiggle room on a message board. Folks hold them accountable for everything they say.
At least your big enough to admit this.
However...
...this makes no sense. The real question is whether implied multiplication takes precedence over explicit multiplication.
Ok my last time trying to break it down
if you have a 100 dollar bill and you are looking to find out how many $10 bills you can get change for??
would the equation not be
100÷10
or
100÷(5+5)
or
100÷2(5)??
how much is that??
100÷2 x 5 = 50 x 5 = Two Hundred and Twenty Five $10 bills?
or
100÷(2x5) = 100÷10 = ten $10 Bills?
Which one is it?
stop being stubborn and prideful and use your damn common sense
or show me how your equation can work using REAL WORLD applications like money, apples, whatever
BGOL Let's delete this thread and never speak of it again
Whop he is right.
I voted 2.
then I saw the rules and other post and changed it to 288.
I'm going to 2 and staying. thanks.
Yep. That is a step in the right direction. Now, I wonder if followup will be able to understand that same basic premise.
When you SIMPLIFY YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
(9+3)
simplify the group
12.
PERIOD
Yo, on some real shit, it's like debating in the special olympics here.
The way i see it is like this.At least you can admit this much now
It is confusing.
It truly is.
However once you brush up on the order of operations, it's clear.
Still written to confuse, but clearer at least.
Still have yet to find anything from a reputable source that states that implied multiplication takes precedence over multiplication and division.
Only on T-81 calculators and they have sense changed that.
http://epsstore.ti.com/OA_HTML/csksxvm.jsp?nSetId=103110
Nonetheless the problem is too ambiguous ever to be a question on any standardized test so the answer is pointless. I teach SAT,GMAT,LSAT and GRE prep and I looked through all my teaching manuals and couldn't find a similar problem.
He seems to bring that out in people.
Forces us to call him out his name. lol. Wait...that is his name.
this is not properly written, it is too ambiguous..
I agree. I said the same thing like on page 6. However, there was a small cadre of short bus refugees that forced this thread to 50+ pages. followup is the leader. Nathan is the defector. Gods_Idiot is just lost.
Similar threads
