48÷2(9+3) = ???

[not a sneak]

also in
It should be written as

48
______

2(9+3)

Hopefully that will help with the confusion of the problem.

 

[not a sneak]

also in
It should be written as

48
______

2(9+3)

Hopefully that will help with the confusion of the problem.

 

[bc2310]

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

Originally Posted by BC2310

NO ONE CAN DEFEND MYALGEBRA.COM
ANYONE GETTING HEATED OVER THIS IS LOSING AT LIFE

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY I'M TYPING IN CAPS

Team2 btw 

COMPUTATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ENGINE > My ALGEBRA

youre trying to tell me your toyota corolla is better than my ferrari

I do not trust the german site and it's feasible that any math software would use both signs interchangeably which is incorrect. 
Unfortunately the og division symbol is so old and played out it has little relevance today, until some trolling genius came up with this poorly written 'simple' equation.

Why do you think it's written that way everywhere? and not with / ?  with / it's 288 with the og division symbol it's 2.

let's be real U Mad b/c I made fun of your all cap know it all message board style

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by il prescelto

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Mo Greene


yea you do.  look i just wrote a problem:
48÷(2(9+3))

48÷(2(12))

48÷(24)

2

Obvious troll is obvious.
TROLL.

"Oh yeah divide AND multiply that pizza into six slices."

"Gremlins multiply AND divide when they touch water."

Smart, really smart.

Parentheses don't necessarily mean multiplication.

Wrong.

 

[bc2310]

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

Originally Posted by BC2310

NO ONE CAN DEFEND MYALGEBRA.COM
ANYONE GETTING HEATED OVER THIS IS LOSING AT LIFE

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY I'M TYPING IN CAPS

Team2 btw 

COMPUTATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ENGINE > My ALGEBRA

youre trying to tell me your toyota corolla is better than my ferrari

I do not trust the german site and it's feasible that any math software would use both signs interchangeably which is incorrect. 
Unfortunately the og division symbol is so old and played out it has little relevance today, until some trolling genius came up with this poorly written 'simple' equation.

Why do you think it's written that way everywhere? and not with / ?  with / it's 288 with the og division symbol it's 2.

let's be real U Mad b/c I made fun of your all cap know it all message board style

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by il prescelto

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by Mo Greene


yea you do.  look i just wrote a problem:
48÷(2(9+3))

48÷(2(12))

48÷(24)

2

Obvious troll is obvious.
TROLL.

"Oh yeah divide AND multiply that pizza into six slices."

"Gremlins multiply AND divide when they touch water."

Smart, really smart.

Parentheses don't necessarily mean multiplication.

Wrong.

 

[mo greene]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

you can multiply and DIVIDE THO

MULTIPLYING THAN DIVIDING = AND

NOT OR

ITS EITHER AND/OR

I DID BOTH SO ITS AND not OR

THEN, NOT THAN.
* FACE PALM *
And you said I was the ignorant one.

You can't multiply AND divide AT THE SAME TIME. 

You ever seen a problem written as 24÷*6 or 24*÷6? NEVER.

Ballin, huh? You better use that money for some proper education.

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

grasping at straws with that one

 

[mo greene]

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

you can multiply and DIVIDE THO

MULTIPLYING THAN DIVIDING = AND

NOT OR

ITS EITHER AND/OR

I DID BOTH SO ITS AND not OR

THEN, NOT THAN.
* FACE PALM *
And you said I was the ignorant one.

You can't multiply AND divide AT THE SAME TIME. 

You ever seen a problem written as 24÷*6 or 24*÷6? NEVER.

Ballin, huh? You better use that money for some proper education.

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

grasping at straws with that one

 

[nikevandal]

Originally Posted by BC2310

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

Originally Posted by BC2310

NO ONE CAN DEFEND MYALGEBRA.COM
ANYONE GETTING HEATED OVER THIS IS LOSING AT LIFE

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY I'M TYPING IN CAPS

Team2 btw 

COMPUTATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ENGINE > My ALGEBRA

youre trying to tell me your toyota corolla is better than my ferrari

I do not trust the german site and it's feasible that any math software would use both signs interchangeably which is incorrect. 
Unfortunately the og division symbol is so old and played out it has little relevance today, until some trolling genius came up with this poorly written 'simple' equation.

Why do you think it's written that way everywhere? and not with / ?  with / it's 288 with the og division symbol it's 2.

let's be real U Mad b/c I made fun of your all cap know it all message board style

i aint even mad tho imma just call it a night i am right they are wrong

and why would i be mad i have a championship NBA team in my city you dont even have one 

 

[nikevandal]

Originally Posted by BC2310

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

Originally Posted by BC2310

NO ONE CAN DEFEND MYALGEBRA.COM
ANYONE GETTING HEATED OVER THIS IS LOSING AT LIFE

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY I'M TYPING IN CAPS

Team2 btw 

COMPUTATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ENGINE > My ALGEBRA

youre trying to tell me your toyota corolla is better than my ferrari

I do not trust the german site and it's feasible that any math software would use both signs interchangeably which is incorrect. 
Unfortunately the og division symbol is so old and played out it has little relevance today, until some trolling genius came up with this poorly written 'simple' equation.

Why do you think it's written that way everywhere? and not with / ?  with / it's 288 with the og division symbol it's 2.

let's be real U Mad b/c I made fun of your all cap know it all message board style

i aint even mad tho imma just call it a night i am right they are wrong

and why would i be mad i have a championship NBA team in my city you dont even have one 

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

Originally Posted by Not a sneak


it doesn't have to say (2(9+3) its there without being there. I didn't make the rules, but when ever you have anything attached to a parentheses then it has to be applied to that term or you problem is invalid.
answer is 2. I'm sorry but youre wrong. Open up a 7th grade algebra book my dude. Anything attached to the parentheses is part of that term. 

THIS ISNT ATTACHED TO THE DAMN PARENTHESES


THERES A DIVISION SIGN PRECEDING IT

I ASKED NUMEROUS MATH TEACHERS INCLUDING ALGEBRA TEACHERS AND 100% agreed on 288

2 is illogical and invalid it does not compute

Prove me wrong 

why you mad tho?

you correctly noticed the division sign in the problem, show me where there is a multiplication sign in the problem though. i'll help you, there isn't one.the division sign is there to separate the numerator and denominator. there's a reason it doesn't says 48÷2*(9+3). the 2 is separated from the 48 by a division sign, and is attached to the (9+3). how can you argue that the 2 is not connected with the (9+3) when there isn't a sign there to separate them? how can you argue that the 2 is coupled with the 48 when there IS a sign there to separate it?

also, the signs in the problem are there to separate your terms. the only sign here is a division sign, so you separate 48 and 2(9+3). then you do PEMDAS to both terms, 48 stays the same and 2(9+3) turns into (24). since that is as simplified as it can be, the parenthesis drop, and you put the terms back into the problem, separating them by the signs they were originally separated by.
[h3]48÷24=2[/h3]

 

[klipschorn]

Anybody here like Calculus?

 

[klipschorn]

Anybody here like Calculus?

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

Originally Posted by Not a sneak


it doesn't have to say (2(9+3) its there without being there. I didn't make the rules, but when ever you have anything attached to a parentheses then it has to be applied to that term or you problem is invalid.
answer is 2. I'm sorry but youre wrong. Open up a 7th grade algebra book my dude. Anything attached to the parentheses is part of that term. 

THIS ISNT ATTACHED TO THE DAMN PARENTHESES


THERES A DIVISION SIGN PRECEDING IT

I ASKED NUMEROUS MATH TEACHERS INCLUDING ALGEBRA TEACHERS AND 100% agreed on 288

2 is illogical and invalid it does not compute

Prove me wrong 

why you mad tho?

you correctly noticed the division sign in the problem, show me where there is a multiplication sign in the problem though. i'll help you, there isn't one.the division sign is there to separate the numerator and denominator. there's a reason it doesn't says 48÷2*(9+3). the 2 is separated from the 48 by a division sign, and is attached to the (9+3). how can you argue that the 2 is not connected with the (9+3) when there isn't a sign there to separate them? how can you argue that the 2 is coupled with the 48 when there IS a sign there to separate it?

also, the signs in the problem are there to separate your terms. the only sign here is a division sign, so you separate 48 and 2(9+3). then you do PEMDAS to both terms, 48 stays the same and 2(9+3) turns into (24). since that is as simplified as it can be, the parenthesis drop, and you put the terms back into the problem, separating them by the signs they were originally separated by.
[h3]48÷24=2[/h3]

 

[bc2310]

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

Originally Posted by BC2310

Originally Posted by NikeVandal


COMPUTATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ENGINE > My ALGEBRA

youre trying to tell me your toyota corolla is better than my ferrari

I do not trust the german site and it's feasible that any math software would use both signs interchangeably which is incorrect. 
Unfortunately the og division symbol is so old and played out it has little relevance today, until some trolling genius came up with this poorly written 'simple' equation.

Why do you think it's written that way everywhere? and not with / ?  with / it's 288 with the og division symbol it's 2.

let's be real U Mad b/c I made fun of your all cap know it all message board style

i aint even mad tho imma just call it a night i am right they are wrong

and why would i be mad i have a championship NBA team in my city you dont even have one 

 Ok doggy.  Good night sweet prince.  I noticed how you stopped with the caps 

When you wake up answer my question about why it's written out the way it is (with og division symbol instead of /).

 

[bc2310]

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

Originally Posted by BC2310

Originally Posted by NikeVandal


COMPUTATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ENGINE > My ALGEBRA

youre trying to tell me your toyota corolla is better than my ferrari

I do not trust the german site and it's feasible that any math software would use both signs interchangeably which is incorrect. 
Unfortunately the og division symbol is so old and played out it has little relevance today, until some trolling genius came up with this poorly written 'simple' equation.

Why do you think it's written that way everywhere? and not with / ?  with / it's 288 with the og division symbol it's 2.

let's be real U Mad b/c I made fun of your all cap know it all message board style

i aint even mad tho imma just call it a night i am right they are wrong

and why would i be mad i have a championship NBA team in my city you dont even have one 

 Ok doggy.  Good night sweet prince.  I noticed how you stopped with the caps 

When you wake up answer my question about why it's written out the way it is (with og division symbol instead of /).

 

[nikevandal]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

THIS ISNT ATTACHED TO THE DAMN PARENTHESES


THERES A DIVISION SIGN PRECEDING IT

I ASKED NUMEROUS MATH TEACHERS INCLUDING ALGEBRA TEACHERS AND 100% agreed on 288

2 is illogical and invalid it does not compute

Prove me wrong 

why you mad tho?

you correctly noticed the division sign in the problem, show me where there is a multiplication sign in the problem though. i'll help you, there isn't one.the division sign is there to separate the numerator and denominator. there's a reason it doesn't says 48÷2*(9+3). the 2 is separated from the 48 by a division sign, and is attached to the (9+3). how can you argue that the 2 is not connected with the (9+3) when there isn't a sign there to separate them? how can you argue that the 2 is coupled with the 48 when there IS a sign there to separate it?

also, the signs in the problem are there to separate your terms. the only sign here is a division sign, so you separate 48 and 2(9+3). then you do PEMDAS to both terms, 48 stays the same and 2(9+3) turns into (24). since that is as simplified as it can be, the parenthesis drop, and you put the terms back into the problem, separating them by the signs they were originally separated by.
[h3]48÷24=2[/h3]

2(12) = your distributing

distributing = multiplying

division AND MULTIplying

YOU GO IN ORDER LEFT TO RIGHT

end of discussion

 

[nikevandal]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

THIS ISNT ATTACHED TO THE DAMN PARENTHESES


THERES A DIVISION SIGN PRECEDING IT

I ASKED NUMEROUS MATH TEACHERS INCLUDING ALGEBRA TEACHERS AND 100% agreed on 288

2 is illogical and invalid it does not compute

Prove me wrong 

why you mad tho?

you correctly noticed the division sign in the problem, show me where there is a multiplication sign in the problem though. i'll help you, there isn't one.the division sign is there to separate the numerator and denominator. there's a reason it doesn't says 48÷2*(9+3). the 2 is separated from the 48 by a division sign, and is attached to the (9+3). how can you argue that the 2 is not connected with the (9+3) when there isn't a sign there to separate them? how can you argue that the 2 is coupled with the 48 when there IS a sign there to separate it?

also, the signs in the problem are there to separate your terms. the only sign here is a division sign, so you separate 48 and 2(9+3). then you do PEMDAS to both terms, 48 stays the same and 2(9+3) turns into (24). since that is as simplified as it can be, the parenthesis drop, and you put the terms back into the problem, separating them by the signs they were originally separated by.
[h3]48÷24=2[/h3]

2(12) = your distributing

distributing = multiplying

division AND MULTIplying

YOU GO IN ORDER LEFT TO RIGHT

end of discussion

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

you can multiply and DIVIDE THO

MULTIPLYING THAN DIVIDING = AND

NOT OR

ITS EITHER AND/OR

I DID BOTH SO ITS AND not OR

THEN, NOT THAN.
* FACE PALM *
And you said I was the ignorant one.

You can't multiply AND divide AT THE SAME TIME. 

You ever seen a problem written as 24÷*6 or 24*÷6? NEVER.

Ballin, huh? You better use that money for some proper education.

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

it still makes sense as i am comparing two things so i still winning

you never said the same time though youre just throwing in extra words now to justify your prior statements

the parentheses indicate its precedence before everything so its not at the same time

your logic is all over the place make up your mind

i can fire shots cause i got evidence to back me up you dont


METHODMAN OR CAMERON MOD ME AND DEMOD THIS GUY I CAN AT LEAST PASS A MATH CLASS AND GET YOU THE CORRECT STATISTICS TO TURN YOUR SATURN INTO AN M3

The more you post the more it shows who the uneducated one is. 
The fact remains that Ã· AND * can not be performed at the same time.
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[ncmalko1]

The answer is 2.

Its been shown in text books on here. THE ENTIRE PARANTHESIS IS DONE FIRST 2(9+3) is 24.

 

[ncmalko1]

The answer is 2.

Its been shown in text books on here. THE ENTIRE PARANTHESIS IS DONE FIRST 2(9+3) is 24.

 

[kingcrux31]

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

Originally Posted by kingcrux31

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

you can multiply and DIVIDE THO

MULTIPLYING THAN DIVIDING = AND

NOT OR

ITS EITHER AND/OR

I DID BOTH SO ITS AND not OR

THEN, NOT THAN.
* FACE PALM *
And you said I was the ignorant one.

You can't multiply AND divide AT THE SAME TIME. 

You ever seen a problem written as 24÷*6 or 24*÷6? NEVER.

Ballin, huh? You better use that money for some proper education.

[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

it still makes sense as i am comparing two things so i still winning

you never said the same time though youre just throwing in extra words now to justify your prior statements

the parentheses indicate its precedence before everything so its not at the same time

your logic is all over the place make up your mind

i can fire shots cause i got evidence to back me up you dont


METHODMAN OR CAMERON MOD ME AND DEMOD THIS GUY I CAN AT LEAST PASS A MATH CLASS AND GET YOU THE CORRECT STATISTICS TO TURN YOUR SATURN INTO AN M3

The more you post the more it shows who the uneducated one is. 
The fact remains that Ã· AND * can not be performed at the same time.
[font=arial, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[nikevandal]

Originally Posted by BC2310

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

Originally Posted by BC2310

I do not trust the german site and it's feasible that any math software would use both signs interchangeably which is incorrect. 
Unfortunately the og division symbol is so old and played out it has little relevance today, until some trolling genius came up with this poorly written 'simple' equation.

Why do you think it's written that way everywhere? and not with / ?  with / it's 288 with the og division symbol it's 2.

let's be real U Mad b/c I made fun of your all cap know it all message board style

i aint even mad tho imma just call it a night i am right they are wrong

and why would i be mad i have a championship NBA team in my city you dont even have one 

 Ok doggy.  Good night sweet prince.  I noticed how you stopped with the caps 

When you wake up answer my question about why it's written out the way it is (with og division symbol instead of /).

division is division multiplication is multiplication


YOU START THE DAMN PARENTHESES AT 9 AND CLOSE IT AFTER 3

which leaves you with (9+3) simplifies to 2(12)

youre distributing that either way  so thats considered multiplication according to pemdas

and when you have division in there you do whatever comes first

DIVISION WILL ALWAYS BE DIVIDING

MULTIPLICATION WILL ALWAYS BE MULTIPLYING

 

[nikevandal]

Originally Posted by BC2310

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

Originally Posted by BC2310

I do not trust the german site and it's feasible that any math software would use both signs interchangeably which is incorrect. 
Unfortunately the og division symbol is so old and played out it has little relevance today, until some trolling genius came up with this poorly written 'simple' equation.

Why do you think it's written that way everywhere? and not with / ?  with / it's 288 with the og division symbol it's 2.

let's be real U Mad b/c I made fun of your all cap know it all message board style

i aint even mad tho imma just call it a night i am right they are wrong

and why would i be mad i have a championship NBA team in my city you dont even have one 

 Ok doggy.  Good night sweet prince.  I noticed how you stopped with the caps 

When you wake up answer my question about why it's written out the way it is (with og division symbol instead of /).

division is division multiplication is multiplication


YOU START THE DAMN PARENTHESES AT 9 AND CLOSE IT AFTER 3

which leaves you with (9+3) simplifies to 2(12)

youre distributing that either way  so thats considered multiplication according to pemdas

and when you have division in there you do whatever comes first

DIVISION WILL ALWAYS BE DIVIDING

MULTIPLICATION WILL ALWAYS BE MULTIPLYING

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by NikeVandal

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by do work son


why you mad tho?

you correctly noticed the division sign in the problem, show me where there is a multiplication sign in the problem though. i'll help you, there isn't one.the division sign is there to separate the numerator and denominator. there's a reason it doesn't says 48÷2*(9+3). the 2 is separated from the 48 by a division sign, and is attached to the (9+3). how can you argue that the 2 is not connected with the (9+3) when there isn't a sign there to separate them? how can you argue that the 2 is coupled with the 48 when there IS a sign there to separate it?

also, the signs in the problem are there to separate your terms. the only sign here is a division sign, so you separate 48 and 2(9+3). then you do PEMDAS to both terms, 48 stays the same and 2(9+3) turns into (24). since that is as simplified as it can be, the parenthesis drop, and you put the terms back into the problem, separating them by the signs they were originally separated by.
[h3]48÷24=2[/h3]

2(12) = your distributing

distributing = multiplying

division AND MULTIplying

YOU GO IN ORDER LEFT TO RIGHT

end of discussion

i don't think you understand what im trying to explain to you. but i'll try again.

we have a division problem at hand.

a÷b
a= 48
b= 2(9+3)
in our problem, b is not a simplified term. to simplify it, you do PEMDAS. 2(9+3)= 2(12)= (24)

now that b is simplified, you can put it back in the OG problem where they originally were.

[h3]48÷24=2 [/h3]

2(12) isn't a simplified term by the way. the simplified form of 2(12) is (24)