48÷2(9+3) = ???

[do work son]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

THE DIVISION SYMBOL DOES NOT SEPERATE FRACTIONS. Only a horizontal line indicates a fraction. Im not adding a parenthesis because its not needed if you go by order of operations you will get the answer. You cant find any evidence of the division symbol indicating a complete fraction for an equation. Im giving you the opportunity now to find proof of your belief. Obviously if you cant find proof your belief is false.

Your doing order of operations wrong. 48 is ONLY dividing into 2 nothing else.

im saying, if 48 were only dividing 2, there would be another set of parenthesis to separate the 2 from (9+3). i'm about to take this to my calculus tutor in an hour or so and i'll see if he can record an explanation for this.

 

[wallyhopp]

I can see why messageboards had to close these threads down. It was said at the very beginning, poorly written problem. Team 288 seems adamant about being RIGHT though. Very defensive bunch

 

[wallyhopp]

I can see why messageboards had to close these threads down. It was said at the very beginning, poorly written problem. Team 288 seems adamant about being RIGHT though. Very defensive bunch

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Your doing order of operations wrong. 48 is ONLY dividing into 2 nothing else.

im saying, if 48 were only dividing 2, there would be another set of parenthesis to separate the 2 from (9+3). i'm about to take this to my calculus tutor in an hour or so and i'll see if he can record an explanation for this.

No it wouldnt. Its not needed because order of operations takes care of it. There is no rule of juxtaposition. Google it you wont find it. By saying it needs another parenthesis you are disregarding order of operations completely.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son

Your doing order of operations wrong. 48 is ONLY dividing into 2 nothing else.

im saying, if 48 were only dividing 2, there would be another set of parenthesis to separate the 2 from (9+3). i'm about to take this to my calculus tutor in an hour or so and i'll see if he can record an explanation for this.

No it wouldnt. Its not needed because order of operations takes care of it. There is no rule of juxtaposition. Google it you wont find it. By saying it needs another parenthesis you are disregarding order of operations completely.

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son


 the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

THE DIVISION SYMBOL DOES NOT SEPERATE FRACTIONS. Only a horizontal line indicates a fraction. Im not adding a parenthesis because its not needed if you go by order of operations you will get the answer. You cant find any evidence of the division symbol indicating a complete fraction for an equation. Im giving you the opportunity now to find proof of your belief. Obviously if you cant find proof your belief is false.

You're really making this problem a lot more difficult than it is.
Like I said earlier, the people getting an answer of 2 try to manipulate the problem to get their answer 

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by do work son


 the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

THE DIVISION SYMBOL DOES NOT SEPERATE FRACTIONS. Only a horizontal line indicates a fraction. Im not adding a parenthesis because its not needed if you go by order of operations you will get the answer. You cant find any evidence of the division symbol indicating a complete fraction for an equation. Im giving you the opportunity now to find proof of your belief. Obviously if you cant find proof your belief is false.

You're really making this problem a lot more difficult than it is.
Like I said earlier, the people getting an answer of 2 try to manipulate the problem to get their answer 

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

I can see why messageboards had to close these threads down. It was said at the very beginning, poorly written problem. Team 288 seems adamant about being RIGHT though. Very defensive bunch

How is it poorly written though? Its not necessary to show a multiplication symbol if you already have parenthesis. Any MODERN day calculator or math solving program will get 288 because it has the proper logic to do order of operations when there is juxtaposition. Its that simple you cant find any modern day equipment that will get you 2 that is actually worth more than 10 bucks.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

I can see why messageboards had to close these threads down. It was said at the very beginning, poorly written problem. Team 288 seems adamant about being RIGHT though. Very defensive bunch

How is it poorly written though? Its not necessary to show a multiplication symbol if you already have parenthesis. Any MODERN day calculator or math solving program will get 288 because it has the proper logic to do order of operations when there is juxtaposition. Its that simple you cant find any modern day equipment that will get you 2 that is actually worth more than 10 bucks.

 

[Specter]

Originally Posted by do work son


the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

It's the same thing.

Since you seem so confident please tell me that 48÷2(9+3) isn't the same as 48÷2 * (9+3) or 48÷2 × (9+3)

You're the best troll I've seen if you tell me they aren't the same.

 

[Specter]

Originally Posted by do work son


the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

It's the same thing.

Since you seem so confident please tell me that 48÷2(9+3) isn't the same as 48÷2 * (9+3) or 48÷2 × (9+3)

You're the best troll I've seen if you tell me they aren't the same.

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah

Originally Posted by do work son


the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

It's the same thing.

Since you seem so confident please tell me that 48÷2(9+3) isn't the same as 48÷2 * (9+3) or 48÷2 × (9+3)

You're the best troll I've seen if you tell me they aren't the same.

you're separating terms, taking the (9+3) out of the denominator of the overall division problem

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah

Originally Posted by do work son


the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

It's the same thing.

Since you seem so confident please tell me that 48÷2(9+3) isn't the same as 48÷2 * (9+3) or 48÷2 × (9+3)

You're the best troll I've seen if you tell me they aren't the same.

you're separating terms, taking the (9+3) out of the denominator of the overall division problem

 

[denni5themenace]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

I can see why messageboards had to close these threads down. It was said at the very beginning, poorly written problem. Team 288 seems adamant about being RIGHT though. Very defensive bunch

How is it poorly written though? Its not necessary to show a multiplication symbol if you already have parenthesis. Any MODERN day calculator or math solving program will get 288 because it has the proper logic to do order of operations when there is juxtaposition. Its that simple you cant find any modern day equipment that will get you 2 that is actually worth more than 10 bucks.

pretty much. 

 

[denni5themenace]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

I can see why messageboards had to close these threads down. It was said at the very beginning, poorly written problem. Team 288 seems adamant about being RIGHT though. Very defensive bunch

How is it poorly written though? Its not necessary to show a multiplication symbol if you already have parenthesis. Any MODERN day calculator or math solving program will get 288 because it has the proper logic to do order of operations when there is juxtaposition. Its that simple you cant find any modern day equipment that will get you 2 that is actually worth more than 10 bucks.

pretty much. 

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah

Originally Posted by do work son


the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

It's the same thing.

Since you seem so confident please tell me that 48÷2(9+3) isn't the same as 48÷2 * (9+3) or 48÷2 × (9+3)

You're the best troll I've seen if you tell me they aren't the same.

you're separating terms, taking the (9+3) out of the denominator of the overall division problem

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah

Originally Posted by do work son


the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

It's the same thing.

Since you seem so confident please tell me that 48÷2(9+3) isn't the same as 48÷2 * (9+3) or 48÷2 × (9+3)

You're the best troll I've seen if you tell me they aren't the same.

you're separating terms, taking the (9+3) out of the denominator of the overall division problem

So are you saying ab is one term? and is not a*b? and in the problem c/ab you would multiply a by b first?

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah

Originally Posted by do work son


the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

It's the same thing.

Since you seem so confident please tell me that 48÷2(9+3) isn't the same as 48÷2 * (9+3) or 48÷2 × (9+3)

You're the best troll I've seen if you tell me they aren't the same.

you're separating terms, taking the (9+3) out of the denominator of the overall division problem

So are you saying ab is one term? and is not a*b? and in the problem c/ab you would multiply a by b first?

 

[certifiedsw]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah

Originally Posted by do work son


the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

It's the same thing.

Since you seem so confident please tell me that 48÷2(9+3) isn't the same as 48÷2 * (9+3) or 48÷2 × (9+3)

You're the best troll I've seen if you tell me they aren't the same.

you're separating terms, taking the (9+3) out of the denominator of the overall division problem

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by do work son

if the problem said 48/2(9+3) it would be safe to assume that 48/2 was the coefficient to the term (9+3).

but the problem says 48÷2(9+3) implying that everything after the division sign is in the denominator, grouping 2 as the coefficient to (9+3)

so...
4÷3x2x2 = 1/3

4/3x2x2 = 16/3.  

got it.

 

[Specter]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah

Originally Posted by do work son


the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

It's the same thing.

Since you seem so confident please tell me that 48÷2(9+3) isn't the same as 48÷2 * (9+3) or 48÷2 × (9+3)

You're the best troll I've seen if you tell me they aren't the same.

you're separating terms, taking the (9+3) out of the denominator of the overall division problem

48/2 = one set
9+3/1 = another set

you can't multiply 2 by 9 or 3 because 2 is not within any parenthesis and multiplying break the order. I've said it over and over. How can you justify taking 2 and multiplying it by 9+3(12) when it breaks the order?

 

[Specter]

Originally Posted by do work son

Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah

Originally Posted by do work son


the problem doesnt read 48/2(9+3), it reads 48÷2(9+3).

the same way you say that i assume because i added another set of parenthesis, i say you're assuming by adding parenthesis to make it (48÷2)(9+3).
my point is: there is a division sign, not a /. when you change it from  ÷ to a / you open up a venue for misinterpretation(whether its 48/2 times (9+3) or if it is 48 divided by 2(9+3) ), which in my opinion, is where the 288 believers have been led astray.

It's the same thing.

Since you seem so confident please tell me that 48÷2(9+3) isn't the same as 48÷2 * (9+3) or 48÷2 × (9+3)

You're the best troll I've seen if you tell me they aren't the same.

you're separating terms, taking the (9+3) out of the denominator of the overall division problem

48/2 = one set
9+3/1 = another set

you can't multiply 2 by 9 or 3 because 2 is not within any parenthesis and multiplying break the order. I've said it over and over. How can you justify taking 2 and multiplying it by 9+3(12) when it breaks the order?

 

[megachamploo]

Originally Posted by do work son

if the problem said 48/2(9+3) it would be safe to assume that 48/2 was the coefficient to the term (9+3).

but the problem says 48÷2(9+3) implying that everything after the division sign is in the denominator, grouping 2 as the coefficient to (9+3)

so...
4÷3x2x2 = 1/3

4/3x2x2 = 16/3.  

got it.

 

[ncmalko1]

There is a difference between 48/2(9+3) and 48/2*(9+3)

48/2*(9+3) is saying 48/2**9+3 Parenthesis means to multiply and * means to multiply. You are incorrectly saying multiply two straight times.

the answer is 2

 

[ncmalko1]

There is a difference between 48/2(9+3) and 48/2*(9+3)

48/2*(9+3) is saying 48/2**9+3 Parenthesis means to multiply and * means to multiply. You are incorrectly saying multiply two straight times.

the answer is 2