- 8,941
- 5,398
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
I've asked 10 people and they all said 288.
48÷2(9+3) = ???
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by n1k3b4ller,
- Start date
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
Show proof then.Originally Posted by snakeyes17
Oh I'm sorry let's disregard the greatest computer innovation of 2009 according to Popular Science.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.Originally Posted by NikeVandal
COMPUTATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ENGINE > My ALGEBRA
youre trying to tell me your toyota corolla is better than my ferrari
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'm sure this website running on over 10,000 computers is sure to get the wrong answer to a simple algebra problem.
And it gets 288 if you use ÷ or / in the problem.
But let's go with a no name website myalgebra.com....yeah.
Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69
Thank you MathGod
hope this lulls Crux to sleep
also, smh at not knowing the other night, was sleepy
This is correct. Distribution is a function of multiplication. You must perform division first in this problem.
Actually, you're wrong.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Distributing a number NOT DIRECTLY ATTACHED to ( ) is WRONG.Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69
Thank you MathGod
hope this lulls Crux to sleep
also, smh at not knowing the other night, was sleepy
It's becoming more and more evident how many of you don't know what you're talking about.
But I could predict your response would just be "Troll" .......
That's right. You can't because what I stated is a fact.
You distribute 48 instead of 2? Worst explanation for 288.
Again, you should remove yourself from this conversation if you're only posting 288 because Wolfram Alpha, Google and your calculator gave you 288.
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
Show proof then.Originally Posted by snakeyes17
Oh I'm sorry let's disregard the greatest computer innovation of 2009 according to Popular Science.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.Originally Posted by NikeVandal
COMPUTATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ENGINE > My ALGEBRA
youre trying to tell me your toyota corolla is better than my ferrari
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'm sure this website running on over 10,000 computers is sure to get the wrong answer to a simple algebra problem.
And it gets 288 if you use ÷ or / in the problem.
But let's go with a no name website myalgebra.com....yeah.
Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69
Thank you MathGod
hope this lulls Crux to sleep
also, smh at not knowing the other night, was sleepy
This is correct. Distribution is a function of multiplication. You must perform division first in this problem.
Actually, you're wrong.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Distributing a number NOT DIRECTLY ATTACHED to ( ) is WRONG.Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69
Thank you MathGod
hope this lulls Crux to sleep
also, smh at not knowing the other night, was sleepy
It's becoming more and more evident how many of you don't know what you're talking about.
But I could predict your response would just be "Troll" .......
That's right. You can't because what I stated is a fact.
You distribute 48 instead of 2? Worst explanation for 288.
Again, you should remove yourself from this conversation if you're only posting 288 because Wolfram Alpha, Google and your calculator gave you 288.
- 9,370
- 4,185
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
Exactly..Originally Posted by franchise3
Team 2 and Team 288, to quote the great Jay-Z:
'A wise man told me not to argue with fools, because people from a distance, can't tell who is who'
Point is, it's getting pointless. Nobody is changing anybody's minds. It's time to move on
Lock this thread up PLEASE
- 9,370
- 4,185
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
Exactly..Originally Posted by franchise3
Team 2 and Team 288, to quote the great Jay-Z:
'A wise man told me not to argue with fools, because people from a distance, can't tell who is who'
Point is, it's getting pointless. Nobody is changing anybody's minds. It's time to move on
Lock this thread up PLEASE
- 839
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
Originally Posted by snakeyes17
Oh I'm sorry let's disregard the greatest computer innovation of 2009 according to Popular Science.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.Originally Posted by NikeVandal
COMPUTATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ENGINE > My ALGEBRA
youre trying to tell me your toyota corolla is better than my ferrari
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'm sure this website running on over 10,000 computers is sure to get the wrong answer to a simple algebra problem.
And it gets 288 if you use ÷ or / in the problem.
But let's go with a no name website myalgebra.com....yeah.
Ok, like your boy said earlier. wolframalpha is a Ferrari and myalgebra is a corolla.
You know what happens when you drive a Ferrari too slow? It %$!*! up the engine
I feel like I've been the most reasonable person for both sides.
There is a difference between the signs. No one can answer my question about why the old symbol is used on every forum thread title instead of /
If you read my all caps like I was mad I'm not, I understand both sides of the argument. I was just pointing out how dude was coming off.
- 839
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
Originally Posted by snakeyes17
Oh I'm sorry let's disregard the greatest computer innovation of 2009 according to Popular Science.Originally Posted by BC2310
I do not trust the german site and it's feasible that any math software would use both signs interchangeably which is incorrect.Originally Posted by NikeVandal
COMPUTATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ENGINE > My ALGEBRA
youre trying to tell me your toyota corolla is better than my ferrari
Unfortunately the og division symbol is so old and played out it has little relevance today, until some trolling genius came up with this poorly written 'simple' equation.
Why do you think it's written that way everywhere? and not with / ? with / it's 288 with the og division symbol it's 2.
let's be real U Mad b/c I made fun of your all cap know it all message board style
I'm sure this website running on over 10,000 computers is sure to get the wrong answer to a simple algebra problem.
And it gets 288 if you use ÷ or / in the problem.
But let's go with a no name website myalgebra.com....yeah.
Ok, like your boy said earlier. wolframalpha is a Ferrari and myalgebra is a corolla.
You know what happens when you drive a Ferrari too slow? It %$!*! up the engine
I feel like I've been the most reasonable person for both sides.
There is a difference between the signs. No one can answer my question about why the old symbol is used on every forum thread title instead of /
If you read my all caps like I was mad I'm not, I understand both sides of the argument. I was just pointing out how dude was coming off.
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
Showing your solution on paper > Wolfram, Google and your fancy calculator combined.
288 is wrong because the original problem shows 2(9+3), NOT 48(9+3).
288 is wrong because the original problem shows 2(9+3), NOT 48(9+3).
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
Showing your solution on paper > Wolfram, Google and your fancy calculator combined.
288 is wrong because the original problem shows 2(9+3), NOT 48(9+3).
288 is wrong because the original problem shows 2(9+3), NOT 48(9+3).
- 2,004
- 22
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- 2,004
- 22
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- 4,363
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
Where exactly did you read that the division symbol = fraction?
- 4,363
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
Where exactly did you read that the division symbol = fraction?
- 8,416
- 1,852
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
- WAT?
........you have GOT to be kidding me?
- 8,416
- 1,852
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
- WAT?
........you have GOT to be kidding me?
- 1,328
- 11
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
Because divisions are fractions, cuz
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
Numerator = Dividend
Denominator = Divisor
- 1,328
- 11
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
Because divisions are fractions, cuz
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
Numerator = Dividend
Denominator = Divisor
- 1,871
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
You can't even comprehend what has been said.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Show proof then.
That's right. You can't because what I stated is a fact.
You distribute 48 instead of 2? Worst explanation for 288.
Again, you should remove yourself from this conversation if you're only posting 288 because Wolfram Alpha, Google and your calculator gave you 288.
48 instead of 2? Uh, no.
Distribution is multiplying the inside times by the outside term. Why would you do that without performing division. You would distribute 24 to 9 and 24 to 3.
And on your paper? Why you throwing the 2(9+3) into the denominator? It isn't, or it would be (2(9+3)) or [2(9+3)].
Funny, you can get the same answer on paper, in a calculator, on Google, on Wolfram Alpha, and from credible sources.
Yet....where do you get 2 from? Improperly performing mathematical calculations? Making up rules? Restructuring the problem to your liking?
Using a website called myalgebra.com ?
- 2,794
- 43
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
^ Ahh you beat me to it.
- 2,794
- 43
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
^ Ahh you beat me to it.
- 1,871
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
You can't even comprehend what has been said.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
Show proof then.
That's right. You can't because what I stated is a fact.
You distribute 48 instead of 2? Worst explanation for 288.
Again, you should remove yourself from this conversation if you're only posting 288 because Wolfram Alpha, Google and your calculator gave you 288.
48 instead of 2? Uh, no.
Distribution is multiplying the inside times by the outside term. Why would you do that without performing division. You would distribute 24 to 9 and 24 to 3.
And on your paper? Why you throwing the 2(9+3) into the denominator? It isn't, or it would be (2(9+3)) or [2(9+3)].
Funny, you can get the same answer on paper, in a calculator, on Google, on Wolfram Alpha, and from credible sources.
Yet....where do you get 2 from? Improperly performing mathematical calculations? Making up rules? Restructuring the problem to your liking?
Using a website called myalgebra.com ?
- 2,804
- 82
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- 2,804
- 82
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008