So how did you get it wrong?
48÷2(9+3) = ????
- Thread starter nubian
- Start date
^^^This! I can't believe cats still wasted time arguing with that troll Nathan after he said '/' and '÷' don't mean the same thing.
Mathway! 
I think the "logical ones" or really just the people that agree with you have decided to distance themselves away from your black ass who:
Can't see the connection between the OP original problem and related examples, even when the support your argument, let a alone the ones that don't.
Takes it upon yourself to hunt down a video clip of a person performing the order of operations correctly in an example that truly has no relation ship to the original problem or related examples. Proving your lack of understanding of the actual debate between the 2 and the 288.
And you refused to address questions that could possibly vindicate you from your ignorance.
The actual debate has been over for a while many of us who were on one side or the other have decided to admit that the way the problem is written, there is room for different interpretations.
What's been happening for the last several hours is folks discovering that you, one of the main contributers to this debate is a total dumb ass who had no business in the discussion from the jump.
This will be over when you stop posting and displaying your ignorance. I won't stop nigga, I won't.
So lets try this again EVEN THOUGH I KNOW YOU WON'T ANSWER IT
But Ima try to make it painful as fuck for you to keep glossing over!
1) CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THE EXAMPLES POSTED BY tre2k4 ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM?
2) CAN YOU PROVIDE ANY UPDATE ON THE HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT THAT NOBODY GAVE YOU?
3) WHAT THE FUCK DOES THE VIDEO HAVE TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM?
4)
--------------------------------------------------------------
I won't stop nigga, I won't!
c/s * 48÷2(9+3).From pg. 6
The problem isn't very well defined
This was posted on the first page.
The first page.
Some folks still wanna go on about how it's 48 divided 2 multiplied by the rest...I think I'm going to bed.
I had to add on.
Hmmmm....really thinking about this, we've all been duped.
There's really no level of mathematics where you would see an ambiguous statement such as "48/2(9+3)". Once in algebra, you would see division represented with numerators and denominators, with products never interspersed with division at all.
Basically, the answer is 288 *unless* there is some special rule that says 2x (or 2(x)) must be interpreted first, despite PPMDAS. Myself, I don't claim to have super Calculus degrees like some, but I've seen more math than most. I have never ran into such a special rule, but sure it may exist since as I said: "48/2(9+3)" is an unrealistic problem.
I had my laughs, but I realize that spending time trying to understand the nuances of such an unrealistic problem I've come to discover is pretty silly. At first, I laughed at the 2's....but now I'm happy that everybody is spending time on this - shows another level. But in the end it's ultimately a trick question - not that there isn't an answer, but the question is so irrelevant since the nomenclature is pre-pre-algebra, it's really not worth folks spending time on.
There's really no level of mathematics where you would see an ambiguous statement such as "48/2(9+3)". Once in algebra, you would see division represented with numerators and denominators, with products never interspersed with division at all.
Basically, the answer is 288 *unless* there is some special rule that says 2x (or 2(x)) must be interpreted first, despite PPMDAS. Myself, I don't claim to have super Calculus degrees like some, but I've seen more math than most. I have never ran into such a special rule, but sure it may exist since as I said: "48/2(9+3)" is an unrealistic problem.
I had my laughs, but I realize that spending time trying to understand the nuances of such an unrealistic problem I've come to discover is pretty silly. At first, I laughed at the 2's....but now I'm happy that everybody is spending time on this - shows another level. But in the end it's ultimately a trick question - not that there isn't an answer, but the question is so irrelevant since the nomenclature is pre-pre-algebra, it's really not worth folks spending time on.
You know what's funny.
We have people using the distributive method. Skipping over doing the work IN the parentheses first, and distributing the 2 to the (9+3)
But if you want to do that
why is it not
48 ÷ 2(9+3)
24(9+3)
and THEN distributed?
Want to see what happens?
24(9+3)
(216+72) = 288.
So if you want to do the distributive property, do it right motherfuckers.
We have people using the distributive method. Skipping over doing the work IN the parentheses first, and distributing the 2 to the (9+3)
But if you want to do that
why is it not
48 ÷ 2(9+3)
24(9+3)
and THEN distributed?
Want to see what happens?
24(9+3)
(216+72) = 288.
So if you want to do the distributive property, do it right motherfuckers.
The real idiots are talking this multiply before dividing nonsense....don't they realize that they're actually arithmetically the same?
Just like Addition/subtraction.
Has this been asked yet?
48*0.5(9+3)
Perhaps that'll shed some light to these fools....
Welcome back to the thread, Rawness. Nathan ocked himself while you were away.
The real idiots are talking this multiply before dividing nonsense....don't they realize that they're actually arithmetically the same?
Just like Addition/subtraction.
You know what's funny.
We have people using the distributive method. Skipping over doing the work IN the parentheses first, and distributing the 2 to the (9+3)
But if you want to do that
why is it not
48 ÷ 2(9+3)
24(9+3)
and THEN distributed?
Want to see what happens?
24(9+3)
(216+72) = 288.
So if you want to do the distributive property, do it right motherfuckers.
Yep, I tried to spell this out to Nathan704 because he just really needed to distribute something.
Welcome back to the thread, Rawness. Nathan ocked himself while you were away.
What page....this shit's ballooned 20 pages since I've last been here.
Exactly it's an ambiguous question but so many are claiming that it isn't. I was trying to show that there's another way to think of the problem but for others it was either black or white. No nuance. No other possibilities. No other way of thinking of the problem. Because to them in math there are no uncertainties or nuance.
I chalk it up to live & learn.
0.020833333333333333333333333333333 X 2(9+3)
The real idiots are talking this multiply before dividing nonsense....don't they realize that they're actually arithmetically the same?
Just like Addition/subtraction.
Has this been asked yet?
48*0.5(9+3)
Perhaps that'll shed some light to these fools....
I was quoted as CHANGING the problem when I wrote it as
48(1/2)(9+3)
so no light will be shedded.
Because the 2 is on the outside of the parentheses If your sum is 288 then ur are grouping 48 with the two as a fraction ie.. 48/2(9+3) the problem however is written as follows 48÷2(9+3)..If the division symbols is*light bulb*
OK wow Ima leave all that shit up there because i just realized it's 288 division symbol is merely a fraction symbol...
would be correct to add the parentheses- 48÷2(12)
then divide 42 into 2- 24(12)
then multiply that sum with the sum of the parenthesized numbers-288
This is the way i believe the problem should look like if you want the sum to be 2
If this would have been a test I would have got this one wrong
Best believe me and my teacher would've had a lil discussion about that shit though..0.020833333333333333333333333333333 X 2(9+3)
This IS changing the problem
This IS NOT changing the problem.
SMH, some niccas just enjoy the dark.
lol @ light bulb.Because the 2 is on the outside of the parentheses If your sum is 288 then ur are grouping 48 with the two as a fraction ie.. 48/2(9+3) the problem however is written as follows 48÷2(9+3)..If the division symbols is*light bulb*
OK wow Ima leave all that shit up there because i just realized it's 288 division symbol is merely a fraction symbol...
would be correct to add the parentheses- 48÷2(12)
then divide 42 into 2- 24(12)
then multiply that sum with the sum of the parenthesized numbers-288
or 48÷(2(9+3)
This is the way i believe the problem should look like if you want the sum to be 2
If this would have been a test I would have got this one wrong
Great choice of words. Welcome to the light. Have a seat and kick back.
Disregard that 2 typo
lol Dota does it again!
page 38 at that
For real I'd be at my teacher neck for putting someslick shit like this on a test...Having me all worried and shit
Because the 2 is on the outside of the parentheses If your sum is 288 then ur are grouping 48 with the two as a fraction ie.. 48/2(9+3) the problem however is written as follows 48÷2(9+3)..If the division symbols is*light bulb*
OK wow Ima leave all that shit up there because i just realized it's 288 division symbol is merely a fraction symbol...
would be correct to add the parentheses- 48÷2(12)
then divide 42 into 2- 24(12)
then multiply that sum with the sum of the parenthesized numbers-288
or 48÷(2(9+3)
This is the way i believe the problem should look like if you want the sum to be 2
If this would have been a test I would have got this one wrong
Fixed.
true, but to get the 288 without debate it really needs to be written 48÷2 X (9+3)
Yes. Written like that anyone should be able to complete it.
To complete it in the other way you have to know something about the order of operations.
This is what makes people look like idiots on here.
Because despite quoting the order of operations people will still continue to do the equation incorrectly.
And anybody who doesn't accept that 2(9+3) and 2 X (9+3) are equivalent statements is just stuck on stupid.
What page....this shit's ballooned 20 pages since I've last been here.
It started with this. I think it was pg. 34.
Then Gods_Idiot chimed in.
/thread
I couldn't let it ride.
So Mathway is the authority now? They must be talking about how their software works...which is incorrectly. Why do they differentiate between '/' and '÷'?
Send that shit to Google or Wolfram Alpha and see what they say and why they calculate it differently.
Engineers and other quantitative professionals, how many of you use Mathway as a reference in your career?
Then follownut jumped on the '/' and '÷' are different bandwagon.
Good. And you learned something new, and you will teach your children so that they can get As in algebraand that is the most important thing
LOL, you just won't give up! Mathway also offers personal tutoring online so I hope they are credentialed. I couldn't figure out where to look on their website for who is behind it...all I saw was information about the software. I would assume that an engineer or computer scientist who developed the site would understand algebra. but if you don't buy the person's explanation, check out the one on the site I posted (purplemath). She lists her credentials for you to review.
Not really. Google; Matlab; Mathematica >>>> Mathway.
Some of us live this shit instead of talking about what u think u learned last semester. As I said before, some schools r better than others.
Some may answer there is no right or wrong but there is definitely a best answer...and 2 is not it.
Math is not some equation in a book. Math is about application. Tre2k4 explained y 288 fits the bill. Only non-quantitative professionals on this board will still argue with that.
Mathway.
From there Nathan, armed with absurd info from Mathway, ran with his '÷' is different than '/' theory. lol. follownut and Gods_Idiot abandoned him to his own stupidity.
End of story.
Last edited:
***************************
More math lessons for some of you:
62-2(5-1)^2+1=????PEMDAS-->62-2(4)^2+1
Now you apply PEMDAS again. You now have something in parentheses and have to decide if you multiply it by a number first or square it...PEMDAS: exponents take priority over multiplication...
-->62-2(16)+1
PEMDAS-->62-32+1
PEMDAS (NOW you can go left to right because addition and subtraction are on the same order)-->30+1-->31
Thanks.
***************************
*waiting for a 288er to refute this* Thanks.
More math lessons for some of you:
62-2(5-1)^2+1=????PEMDAS-->62-2(4)^2+1
Now you apply PEMDAS again. You now have something in parentheses and have to decide if you multiply it by a number first or square it...PEMDAS: exponents take priority over multiplication...
-->62-2(16)+1
PEMDAS-->62-32+1
PEMDAS (NOW you can go left to right because addition and subtraction are on the same order)-->30+1-->31
Thanks.
***************************
*waiting for a 288er to refute this* Thanks.
Last edited:
Similar threads
