48÷2(9+3) = ????
- Thread starter nubian
- Start date
Still waiting for the special ones to justify this. I would also like to point to the ignorance of the idiot who asked this question, thinking that it would justify the answer being 2.
No wiggle room, negro. Not a single bit!
What was said was doing it the way it says in follow ups sig would not give you an answer of 2. That is all.
Excel and Google and any other SOFTWARE can not give you the correct answer to this problem, as has been demonstrated on BGOL by 40% of people and you with the image you just posted
Its not incorrect. If I put it in google or excel I expect it to be 288 because of the convention they use. If they gave me 2, they would disobey their own set rules.
Just a microcosm of the stupidity in here.
(a/b)*c =
a/b * c/1 =
ac/1b =
ac/b
yep, a microcosm of stupidity... sure is
shit..i sent it to different local school districtsI put this question on FB and got these hoes bout to kill each other over the problem
i'ma start a civil war!
Yes, but a/(bc) is
A
__
(bc)
The only contention I have is follows sig. Maybe that's the old math, but you cannot call someone ignorant if this is the way it was taught in school. Plus the creator says it's 2
Yes, but a/(bc) is
A
__
(bc)
The only contention I have is follows sig. Maybe that's the old math, but you cannot call someone ignorant if this is the way it was taught in school. Plus the creator says it's 2
what else do you need to see/hear/taste/touch/smell? whether you're convinced of the answer or not?
game.set.match.
if you're as ugly as you are stupid then god help you little nigga. you're extremely thick headed, so dense and redundant in fact that you became too damn boring to hold my attention last night. then i got into helping my kid go over ways of shortcutting long division and multiplication and that's when i realized there was no point attempting to pour knowledge into a cup that's already full of shit. go figure
Yes, but a/(bc) is
A
__
(bc)
The only contention I have is follows sig. Maybe that's the old math, but you cannot call someone ignorant if this is the way it was taught in school. Plus the creator says it's 2
and that illustrates EXACTLY why you can't just add parentheses wherever you want.
And you can call someone ignorant if they're doing something wrong cuz they were taught to do it wrong ....there's difference between being ignorant and dumb
1 or 2
? ? ? ?
True, but she did post a source that denies your truth. That's all I am saying.
for anyone considering this as a valid point
that problem presents the leading terms as 5/9ths. it's not scientific notation when you clearly present the terms as a fraction
however, what it's saying is do(5f/9 - 32).
besides that is not how you would distribute. you would have to have (9F - 288) the way RAWNESS is doing it
That's just silly
can you post the link to the creator of the problem dictating the answer to be 2. how can you find a better source than that to back up your answer?
All that's been posted in here are incorrect words from people spewing misinformation.
In math there are proofs.
If a, b, c, d... are real numbers, then by definition ab=a*b.
Also, any function [f(a,b,c,d)] of a,b,c,d, involving just +, -,*, and/ is also a real number.
Thus,
a/bc must ALWAYS equal (a/b)*c
Regardless of if I choose them to be single real numbers or functions of real numbers that equality MUST hold.
Anybody who has actually applies math understands this. The likes of followup, Nathan, and God_Debris who haven't dealt with it since grade school just can't get it.
Only way 2ers will get that to work is if they play some funny game with ()'s and make up a rule regarding them.
for anyone considering this as a valid point
that problem presents the leading terms as 5/9ths. it's not scientific notation when you clearly present the terms as a fraction
however, what it's saying is do(5f/9 - 32).
besides that is not how you would distribute. you would have to have (9F - 288) the way RAWNESS is doing it
SMH....you're too dumb to even get the joke....got so excited thinking you "got" me you quoted me twice...
You stay one'ing yourself
SMH....you're too dumb to even get the joke....got so excited thinking you "got" me you quoted me twice...
You stay one'ing yourself
oh yeah your right
! sorry. HILARIOUS!
nigga you're too dumb to even set up the rules for your proofs. don't be mad because i debunked your declarations using the guidlines YOU laid down. i know what the REAL proofs state but in any case, you don't know how to set them up.
i'm done for the day - i'll be too busy to get into this until later tonight. have at it
All true, but the problem wasn't written 48÷2*9+3
Come on, LS, you're close:
It wasn't written as
a/b*c
It was written as
a/bc
And I've already shown that those two are equivalent.
So what's a, what's b, and what's c?
Since you keep checking in anyway, what's your thoughts on the new argument?
No way to come to an agreement. Some of these methods and examples are valid but no one seems to be able to agree to disagree.
This actually gets to the simple meat of the disagreement. That being does the 2 belong in the denominator (yes) or numerator (no).
It sounds reasonable to conceive that one set of folk may have been exposed to a precedence of multiplication outside the parenthesis and others have not accounting for the disagreement.
Like ya boy said theres a diff between being dumb and ignorant.
But I asked for YOUR thoughts on it.
damn this shit still on the front page?
forgot i was on a porn board 4 a minute....
forgot i was on a porn board 4 a minute....
Yeah also,
48 * .5÷(9+3)
=2
But it would make more sense for me to write (48 *.5)÷(9+3)
I have no thoughts other than those types of problems you presented in your example should be explicitly written to avoid confusing. It doesnt matter what it suppose to be, there will always be confusion if its not clear.
I guess ambiguity is subjective, but there is a way to write an equation that everyone can understand universally.
Similar threads
