48÷2(9+3) = ?

[darkraven]

---

If hangin ko, naa man pod koy ikabuga... hehehehe! peace!

it says it all ^_^....

[bearish]

So 48/2x = y

is equal to

48
__ x = y
2

? ? ?

it is written as linear here, so in paper you also have to write it in linear.
48/2(9+3) that's it. then if you're going to solve it like an equation, then let's say
x=48/2(9+3)
x=48/2(12)
x=24x12
x=288

simple di ba!

[cliff_drew]

it is written as linear here, so in paper you also have to write it in linear.
48/2(9+3) that's it. then if you're going to solve it like an equation, then let's say
x=48/2(9+3)
x=48/2(12)
x=24x12
x=288

simple di ba!

then write my sample equation in linear

[akimaro_kaizen]

nganu kaha nga pun-an man ug "[ ]"?

+69 kO ani dude!

→ dat is y f this is the equation → 48/2(9+3)= 288

if pun-an mn gani ug another parenthesis, the story will be changed!! nyahaha.


--ok na? d nata maglalis ani!! ..hihi

[bearish]

then write my sample equation in linear

Why do we have to have another equation to solve? We have to solve the equation given in this thread.

[yiennahs]

lingaw kaayo.. simple nga problem, grabe na ato lalis.. unsa pa kaha kung mag integrate ug mag derive ta..

basta ang ako rajud hinumduman kung magsolve na ug problems kay KISS (keep it simple, stupid).
solve it as, is, don't assume, don't modify... ana lang..

please defend your answer on this



The point is that 2(9+3) is not the same as 2 x (9+3)
I'm not sure about the exact words but I think that the first one contains one term and the second one consists of two separate terms
and because of that you have to work with them differently. -- mau ni iya explanation

[cliff_drew]

Why do we have to have another equation to solve? We have to solve the equation given in this thread.

Since you said it is got to be solved in linear. As a proof, I give another equation to oppose that claim.

[bearish]

you can't say that because until now gipag-awayan pana. other forums mas labaw ang 2 kaysa sa 288, ang other kay 288 ang labaw. Dili na awayan kung 288 ra ang answer heheheeh

Yes, maybe because some people are modifying the equation. If we have to say to strictly stick to the equation and not add anything to it nor take out anything from it, maybe the confusion will be narrowed down to the implied vs explicit multiplication.

[yiennahs]

Yes, maybe because some people are modifying the equation. If we have to say to strictly stick to the equation and not add anything to it nor take out anything from it, maybe the confusion will be narrowed down to the implied vs explicit multiplication.

mau na akong gimean, so unsaun man nimo pagdefend na?

[bearish]

Since you said it is got to be solved in linear. As a proof, I give another equation to oppose that claim.

ok, so can you give your equation to oppose it? Let's take a look what you can present.