48÷2(9+3) = ???

[Danny]

Indeed he did.

[Conki]

I'm having a similar argument with my friend. He insists .99999... (.999 repeating) is equal to 1. When it is in fact, not.

It does though. I find it pretty interesting:)
Proof:

1/3 = 0.3333...
2/3 = 0.6666...

0.999... = 0.3333...+0.666... = 1/3+2/3 = 3/3 = 1

[Danny]

Nay, .999... will always be less than 1.

[Conki]

Nay, .999... will always be less than 1.

Nope, it reaches one in infinity;)

[Danny]

Infinity is a concept, not a number.

[frankenbeemer]

Integral: Take an infinite number of rectangles. Add them together. You now have a finite number.

[Raxe]

Integral: Take an infinite number of rectangles. Add them together. You now have a finite number.

How can you add an infinite amount together?

[Conki]

How can you add an infinite amount together?

You can. 1 infinity + 1 infinity = 1 infinity:D

[Conki]

Infinity is a concept, not a number.

I but you didn't like complex numbers in HS:)

[325ix]

288, you use pemdas, but you work from left to right. So if division comes before multiplication, that is what you do first, same for addition and subtraction.

[frankenbeemer]

How can you add an infinite amount together?

You must first make them infinitely small, so that you have room for all of them, of course that makes them easy to misplace. It's best done with a calculator, or computer (where they are trapped) but some people do integrals on nothing more than a sheet of paper!!!! Incredible? I know.

You sir, are a talented troll (among other talents, I am sure).

[reelizmpro]

I told you it wouldn't work. Your pedantic assertions are becoming boring. Conki is right. You are insisting on a convention that is not universally accepted.

The evidence of this fact is in several places in the thread, including this very page.


:yawn:

The definition of a reciprocal isn't universally accepted?

[5Toes]

I started this up at school. 5 kids all in ap calc or trig instantly grouped it as a fraction, because the 3 is attahced to parathesis.

I agree with them.

48/2(9+3)=48/(2(9+3))

[reelizmpro]

I started this up at school. 5 kids all in ap calc or trig instantly grouped it as a fraction, because the 3 is attahced to parathesis.

I agree with them.

48/2(9+3)=48/(2(9+3))

You mean the 2?

This is exactly how I visualize the problem. Is it wrong to assume this? I don't know but it makes more sense than assuming (48/2)(9+3). Seems awfully clumsy to write it that way. Why not 48(9+3)/2 instead which is what the 288 people are doing? Let's just tear it away from the 2 and put it next to the 48 instead. Yeah, that's all better than seeing 2(9+3) as a denominator. anyway, it all comes down to whether you believe "multiplication by juxtaposition" takes precedence or not. Get rid of parentheses or only solve what's inside?

Also...how would one divide 48 by whole numbers that aren't less than 1 and get 288? They aren't dividing 48 by the (9+3) but actually multiplying 48 (or 24) by (9+3). They just aren't seeing it as 48 divided by 2(9+3) just 48 divided by 2. There are often problems with 2 results but one doesn't quite fit while the other does. hmmmmm

[5Toes]

its 2