burnzz wrote:
lol, plebe
Poll
48÷2(9+3) = ??
| 288 | 43% | 43% - 40 | ||||
| 2 | 56% | 56% - 51 | ||||
| Total: 91 | ||||||
you guys are so jealous i got to make jay kays fireplace and brian robsons archway
Not really because multiplication and division are of the same level and are worked out in order or appearance. But as I've said that does not apply in this scenario because there is only 1 operation.Jay wrote:
Well, that does explain the 2 vs 288 conundrum...KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
its funny that you guys learn it BEDMAS and we learn it PEMDAS
there's also GEMS: Groups, Exponents, Multiplication (and as such, division) and Subtraction (and as such, addition). Cos really, division is multiplying by a fraction and subtraction is adding a negative number.DrunkFace wrote:
Not really because multiplication and division are of the same level and are worked out in order or appearance. But as I've said that does not apply in this scenario because there is only 1 operation.Jay wrote:
Well, that does explain the 2 vs 288 conundrum...KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
its funny that you guys learn it BEDMAS and we learn it PEMDAS
I learnt BODMAS..KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
its funny that you guys learn it BEDMAS and we learn it PEMDAS
Last edited by Finray (2011-04-08 14:34:46)
fucking scots
how do they work?Stimey wrote:
fucking scots
Kampframmer wrote:
burnzz wrote:
lol, plebe
"oxponents"?Finray wrote:
I learnt BODMAS..KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
its funny that you guys learn it BEDMAS and we learn it PEMDAS
48*.5*(9+3)
48*.5*(12)
24*12
288
48*.5*(12)
24*12
288
Spamtheban wrote:
2 x (9+3) = 24
48/24 = 2
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
48*.5*(9+3)
48*.5*(12)
24*12
288
Brackets Of Division Multiplication Adding & Subtracting
alsoHurricane2k9 wrote:
48*.5*(9+3)
48*.5*(12)
24*12
288
48*.5(9+3)
48*.5(12)
48*6
288
no it's not, presidentStimey wrote:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kq979 … o1_400.jpgHurricane2k9 wrote:
48*.5*(9+3)
48*.5*(12)
24*12
288
The answer is fourty-fucking-two
You just don't get it do you.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
alsoHurricane2k9 wrote:
48*.5*(9+3)
48*.5*(12)
24*12
288
48*.5(9+3)
48*.5(12)
48*6
288
48÷2(9+3) =/= 48÷2*(9+3)
i hate it when people say x0.5 instead of just /2, i mean what the hell
This is the best proof. The 2 is still part of the 'brackets' operation.justice wrote:
48 ÷ x(9 + 3) = 288
48 ÷ 9x + 3x = 288
48/12x = 288
4/x = 288
4 = 288x
4/288 = x
1/72 = x
that's why so many people are getting the same answer I'm gettingDrunkFace wrote:
You just don't get it do you.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
alsoHurricane2k9 wrote:
48*.5*(9+3)
48*.5*(12)
24*12
288
48*.5(9+3)
48*.5(12)
48*6
288
48÷2(9+3) =/= 48÷2*(9+3)
I say we bring this to someone like Stephen Hawking, he can settle it.
simple proof.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
that's why so many people are getting the same answer I'm gettingDrunkFace wrote:
You just don't get it do you.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
also
48*.5(9+3)
48*.5(12)
48*6
288
48÷2(9+3) =/= 48÷2*(9+3)
sub (9+3) = A
48/2A =/= 48/2*A
And more people have got the correct answer.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2011-04-08 14:49:27)
i was just taught to use bodmas/bidmas/bedmas or whatever they say in school... and that's the order calculators do it in, i guess
so 2
so 2
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
no there isn't. The implied function is still a function whether the * sign is present or not.DrunkFace wrote:
Not really because multiplication and division are of the same level and are worked out in order or appearance. But as I've said that does not apply in this scenario because there is only 1 operation.Jay wrote:
Well, that does explain the 2 vs 288 conundrum...KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
its funny that you guys learn it BEDMAS and we learn it PEMDAS
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well in my high school and college (and probably most high schools and colleges in the US), you'd write 48/2A (the way you imply it) as 48/(2A) while 48/2A would be the same as (48/2)*A.DrunkFace wrote:
simple proof.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
that's why so many people are getting the same answer I'm gettingDrunkFace wrote:
You just don't get it do you.
48÷2(9+3) =/= 48÷2*(9+3)
sub (9+2) = A
48/2A =/= 48/2*A
And at more people have got the correct answer.