2(9+3) simplified using the Distributive property of multiplication over addition shows that 2(9+3) = (2*9+2*3). The two is inside the parenthesis the entire time. Only reason it's outside is for factored form purposes. Yes that's correct, just because you see the number '2' outside does not mean it's an operand by itself. It's notation for being directly next to the parenthesis means it was factored 'out' and is in fact part of the statement inside the parenthesis which we just saw. So following algebra rules of simplifying, distributive property, factored form and then FINALLY your order of operation you end up with: 48 / 2(9+3) <---- remember this is one statement. 2 factored out and belongs inside according to Dist. property. 48 / (2*12) or (2*9+2*3) or 24 48 / 24 = 2.
that equals 3 if you do it the correct way and the incorrect way that some people might think to do it I agree with you that it is a poorly written equation, but that doesn't change the answer.
Well we find if we put the original problem into Hyperbolic Sin we get (e^(48/2(9+3))-e^-(48/2(9+3)))/2 we get some ungodly number and skip the question to come back to it later and stare into space for half an hour before giving up
it's not 2 that is factored out, it's 1/2 that is factored out. Refer to post #42 about writing the ÷2 as *(1/2)
You're making a flawed logical leap. The distributive property never comes in to play because the division operation has to be executed first. You're using the distributive property to justify use of the distributive property. This is a logical error. You're bringing the distributive property to bear before you have simplified the terms outside the parenthesis. This would work if multiplication was commutative with division, but it isn't, so it doesn't. whether or not 2(9+3) = (2*9 + 2*3) doesn't matter because it never gets executed. Omitting the multiplication operator between any external terms and the parenthesis is a pure notation convention. The correct assertion here is to FIRST apply order of operations (since you don't know what rules you get to use until you know what operation you need to execute), THEN prove the distributive property: 48 / 2(9 + 3) = 48 / 2 * (9 + 3) Pure notation convention. It's not even a mathematical principle... 48 / 2 * (9 + 3) = (48 / 2) * (9 + 3) Order of operations. Left to right. Can't escape it. (48 / 2) * (9 + 3) = (48 / 2)(9 + 3) Again, sheer notation convention (48 / 2)( 9 + 3) = ((48 / 2) * 9 + (48 / 2) * 3) That's the actual distributive property at work. 48 % 2 has to be solved first. You don't get to skip it. That's the entire expression outside the parenthesis.
please use distributive property before doing division. it's not a ÷2. here's a reminder of what that is. The Distributive Property is handy to help you get rid of parentheses. a(b + c) = ab + ac
Order of operations doesn't begin with "apply distributive property" and work from there... Distributive property is a characteristic of the multiplication operator. Please do not execute the multiplication operator until the appropriate time...
why are you modding 48 with 2? you would get zero then... (if you don't get it, don't think too hard, you just don't know C) you are correct though given you mean divide, not mod. I'm just confused why people are believing a calculator that was made in 1992 and no other number crunching machine.
it is a ÷2, read the equation!!!!!! Read a math book, ask a math prof. nevermind what i said after that, it was wrong
Wow to think of us Subaru guys getting all bent out of shape on this simple problem. I should go borrow a math book and put random things up here.
Don't hate! I had to save up for months at my $4/hour highschool job to afford my ti86... but boy did I get good at tetris and galaga after I got that thing!
http://www.algebra.com/algebra/home...Systems_Word_Problems.faq.question.49847.html Use the distributive property to remove the parentheses in the following expression. Then simplify your result if possible. 10(8 + 4) The PEMDAS rule says we have to do all operations inside parentheses before we can multiply. However, the DISTRIBUTIVE PROPERTY allows us to VIOLATE the PEMDAS rule to a certain extent!!! It allows us to multiply first WITHOUT doing the operations of addition or subtraction inside the parentheses first. However, when we use the DISTRIBUTIVE PROPERTY we must multiply by every term inside the parenthesesw. so then it is 48÷ (18+6) seems to still equal 2...
You are contradicting yourself when you state " left to right" , but then start with A÷B, hence, you are going right to left. Left to right: 2(9+3) = 2*9 + 2*3 = (18+6) = 24 48÷24 = 2 Even Hilter failed with 288 [YOUTUBE]bwpWw-iVKHc[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]QATiqw96cBU&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
48 ------ 2(9+3) is different then 48/2(9+3) correct becaus ein the second equation we are not dividing the second half of the problem but in the first equation it is dividing by 24.
I was the one writing code for tetris. anyway, i'm done reading this thread, it's 288, if you can't see that, then I'm sorry you don't understand, I'm going to get back to work where order of operations is followed.
Find one that says: a^b(c + d) = a^(bc + bd) :cheers: I understand where your disconnect is, I'm just not sure how else to express the difference between a(b + c) and (lots of stuff going on over here that eventually simplifies to "a")(b + c). You're not wrong to think the distributive property can be used in this problem, it just can't be used until you're allowed to execute the multiplication operation. It's a property of multiplication...
Are you guys hiring? I'm getting really sick of cracking the whip over here. Fake edit: Not really. I luvs me mah whip.
What's more shocking than the fact that so many of you can't correctly solve a simple math problem is the lengths that you'll go to in order to defend your idiocy. Just sayin.
It's not idiocy. It's a fairly subtle logical error. It's going to click, and the sound of that click will be audible from here. Watch...
Don't get me wrong, incorrect answers are fine, but to defend your wrong answer like everyone else is an idiot is idiocy.
I respectfully disagree. you have to make the parenthesis go away BEFORE you divide. so multiply 2*12 before taking it into 48. IT IS 2
The parenthesis are solved. There are no remaining terms to simplify inside the parens. The multiplication of the result of the parens is not solved yet. Once again, distributive property is a property of multiplication, not parenthesis specifically. You can use it when it's time to multiply any value against a set of terms inside parens. When is the appropriate time to execute the multiplication so you can use the distributive property? Have you worked through the last example I gave with an exponent? You're half right. You have to evaluate everything inside the parenthesis before you can execute the rest. The problem is you can't use the distributive property to suck the 2 inside the parenthesis because it requires multiplication, and you cannot legally use multiplication yet for the same reason you cannot use division yet. You're getting hung up on the distributive property being a property of parenthesis. It's a property of multiplication. If you cannot legally multiply, you cannot legally use that property... yet. Here, check this out. Take note of what happens when there's more than one term outside the parenthesis: http://math.about.com/od/algebra/a/distributive.htm
I am sorry but the first quote you have is confusing I am saying that I can see how each side gets there answer and then go on to show that I understand the correct way to do it with the problem showed. How is that not correctly solving a problem?
I won't be shocked until proven wrong by mythbusters. :InpSt "Enter Your Answer:",288 :ClLCD isp "So, your answer is",288
16 + 10 / 5 * -6 We're down to one term, we can drop the parens 16 + ((10 / 5) * -6) Apply order of operations, division/multiplication is the highest order, start from left 16 + (2 * -6) Further execute order of operations 16 + -12 All done 4
It's an obvious error (that he corrected), but it should be meantioned that 2*-6 does not, in fact, equal 12.
Ok, first we'll simplify the right side. 2(5+3) = 2(8) = 16 Now we multiply both sides by 4x. (7/4x)*4x = 16*4x Now we'll reduce. 7 = 64x And solve. x = (7/64)
No first you simplify but then you multiply both sides by 7 to remove the seven bringing it to 4x=112 then to remove the 4 you divide both side by making x=28
