- 820
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
Like I said, the problem is poorly written so there is no "changing my ways." If you're using PEMDAS, you're obviously a child... it shouldn't even be taught in schools anymore. But the logic is this48
2(9+3) = 48/24 = 2.
48÷2(9+3) = ???
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by n1k3b4ller,
- Start date
2(9+3) = 48/24 = 2.
- 2,031
- 162
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2009
my TI-84 says 288.
i'm heartbroken
team 288 stand up
wait. it actually is the symbol...on my TI-84, it uses a backslash. on that casio, it uses a division sign, idk the scientific name.
the difference lies within the symbol
/thread
really though,
/thread
i'm heartbroken
team 288 stand up
wait. it actually is the symbol...on my TI-84, it uses a backslash. on that casio, it uses a division sign, idk the scientific name.
the difference lies within the symbol
/thread
really though,
/thread
- 2,031
- 162
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2009
my TI-84 says 288.
i'm heartbroken
team 288 stand up
wait. it actually is the symbol...on my TI-84, it uses a backslash. on that casio, it uses a division sign, idk the scientific name.
the difference lies within the symbol
/thread
really though,
/thread
i'm heartbroken
team 288 stand up
wait. it actually is the symbol...on my TI-84, it uses a backslash. on that casio, it uses a division sign, idk the scientific name.
the difference lies within the symbol
/thread
really though,
/thread
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.Originally Posted by Iron Mike
is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.Originally Posted by Iron Mike
is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
- 205
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2006
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.Originally Posted by Iron Mike
is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
what was typed in is exactly the same as what's in the title. The engine interpreted what was entered into the yellow box as that.
- 205
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2006
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.Originally Posted by Iron Mike
is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
what was typed in is exactly the same as what's in the title. The engine interpreted what was entered into the yellow box as that.
- 1,570
- 19
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2004
Originally Posted by cguy610
Question for the team 288: Why does a calculator distribute the 2?
Tagged with the MJ glove.
That calculator doesn't have order of operations programmed into it's source code.
May God have mercy on your soul because we design your car, the roads you drive on, devices that make daily life easier, and that computer you're using I hope hope those engineers know how to do 48/2(9+3)
So why is there no proof of this law on the internet? Like i said before
FOR THE 2 BELIEVERS ONLY!
SOLVE QUESTION 7 ON THIS PAGE
http://amby.com/educate/ord-op/pretest.html
/ether
/thread
THANK YOU!
2 8 8
- 1,570
- 19
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2004
Originally Posted by cguy610
Question for the team 288: Why does a calculator distribute the 2?
Tagged with the MJ glove.
That calculator doesn't have order of operations programmed into it's source code.
May God have mercy on your soul because we design your car, the roads you drive on, devices that make daily life easier, and that computer you're using I hope hope those engineers know how to do 48/2(9+3)
So why is there no proof of this law on the internet? Like i said before
FOR THE 2 BELIEVERS ONLY!
SOLVE QUESTION 7 ON THIS PAGE
http://amby.com/educate/ord-op/pretest.html
/ether
/thread
THANK YOU!
2 8 8
- 385
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.Originally Posted by Iron Mike
is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
thats a straight copy/paste from the thread. do it your way, and get 2. i am easily convinced if you can do it using WA.
- 385
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
Originally Posted by kingcrux31
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.Originally Posted by Iron Mike
is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
thats a straight copy/paste from the thread. do it your way, and get 2. i am easily convinced if you can do it using WA.
- 10,206
- 3,278
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2001
How is that different from the original problem? last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.Originally Posted by Iron Mike
is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
- 10,206
- 3,278
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2001
How is that different from the original problem? last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.Originally Posted by Iron Mike
is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
Step 1: 48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12)
Step 2: 48/2(12) is also written as 48 / 2 * (12) <-- how anyone can deny this is beyond me.
Step 3: Order of operations state you must go from left to right following PEMDAS but multiplication/division are interchangeable, so which ever comes first.
That means you divide 48 by 2 first. 2(12) is part of the multiplication rule, people are forgetting that a multiplication sign separates the 2 and 12.
Step 4: 48 / 2 = 24 and then times that by 12 = 288
Step 2: 48/2(12) is also written as 48 / 2 * (12) <-- how anyone can deny this is beyond me.
Step 3: Order of operations state you must go from left to right following PEMDAS but multiplication/division are interchangeable, so which ever comes first.
That means you divide 48 by 2 first. 2(12) is part of the multiplication rule, people are forgetting that a multiplication sign separates the 2 and 12.
Step 4: 48 / 2 = 24 and then times that by 12 = 288
Step 1: 48/2(9+3) = 48/2(12)
Step 2: 48/2(12) is also written as 48 / 2 * (12) <-- how anyone can deny this is beyond me.
Step 3: Order of operations state you must go from left to right following PEMDAS but multiplication/division are interchangeable, so which ever comes first.
That means you divide 48 by 2 first. 2(12) is part of the multiplication rule, people are forgetting that a multiplication sign separates the 2 and 12.
Step 4: 48 / 2 = 24 and then times that by 12 = 288
Step 2: 48/2(12) is also written as 48 / 2 * (12) <-- how anyone can deny this is beyond me.
Step 3: Order of operations state you must go from left to right following PEMDAS but multiplication/division are interchangeable, so which ever comes first.
That means you divide 48 by 2 first. 2(12) is part of the multiplication rule, people are forgetting that a multiplication sign separates the 2 and 12.
Step 4: 48 / 2 = 24 and then times that by 12 = 288
- 8,859
- 577
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
how is this 77 pages deep, though?
- 8,859
- 577
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
how is this 77 pages deep, though?
- 3,080
- 368
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
Send this to the Supreme Court
But seriously.
But seriously.
- 3,080
- 368
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
Send this to the Supreme Court
But seriously.
But seriously.
- 5,338
- 218
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
Those saying 2, have mercy on thy soul.
GOOGLE SAYS 288.
BING SAYS ITS 288.
WOLFRAM SAYS 288.
MY Ti-84+ says 288.
My Ti-30xIIB says 288.
"÷" is the same thing as "/". I don't see how this is arguable.
The answer is 288 no matter the sign. And of course, the sign wouldn't matter because both mean the exact same thing.
Those saying 2, please show us a legitimate source that gives you the answer 2.
/
GOOGLE SAYS 288.
BING SAYS ITS 288.
WOLFRAM SAYS 288.
MY Ti-84+ says 288.
My Ti-30xIIB says 288.
"÷" is the same thing as "/". I don't see how this is arguable.
The answer is 288 no matter the sign. And of course, the sign wouldn't matter because both mean the exact same thing.
Those saying 2, please show us a legitimate source that gives you the answer 2.
/
- 5,338
- 218
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
Those saying 2, have mercy on thy soul.
GOOGLE SAYS 288.
BING SAYS ITS 288.
WOLFRAM SAYS 288.
MY Ti-84+ says 288.
My Ti-30xIIB says 288.
"÷" is the same thing as "/". I don't see how this is arguable.
The answer is 288 no matter the sign. And of course, the sign wouldn't matter because both mean the exact same thing.
Those saying 2, please show us a legitimate source that gives you the answer 2.
/
GOOGLE SAYS 288.
BING SAYS ITS 288.
WOLFRAM SAYS 288.
MY Ti-84+ says 288.
My Ti-30xIIB says 288.
"÷" is the same thing as "/". I don't see how this is arguable.
The answer is 288 no matter the sign. And of course, the sign wouldn't matter because both mean the exact same thing.
Those saying 2, please show us a legitimate source that gives you the answer 2.
/
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
Originally Posted by pacmagic2002
How is that different from the original problem? last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.Originally Posted by Iron Mike
is wolfram alpha wrong? no.
kingcrux31
Staff member
- 7,360
- 1,031
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
Originally Posted by pacmagic2002
How is that different from the original problem? last time i checked 48/2 and THAT are the exact same thing, just written in a different form.Originally Posted by kingcrux31
It is because the input is totally different from the original problem.Originally Posted by Iron Mike
is wolfram alpha wrong? no.