Are you 100% sure. I mean we need 5 builders here to figure it out and they have to ask 1 manager at Home-Depot.......Had to question myself
Check the edited answer
800 x 800 for 640,000 sq feet
Nope still ain't happy + I'm getting pissed at myselfAre you 100% sure. I mean we need 5 builders here to figure it out and they have to ask 1 manager at Home-Depot.......
Your just 1 builder dividing the work 6 people have to do.
Your the builder here not me.
You got it right this time.Nope still ain't happy + I'm getting pissed at myself
600 x 1200 brings me to 720,000
Yeah trust me and tell me about it hell I forgot how to find the Maximum Area here for this word problem and I just learned the math for it about 2-3 years ago.My biggest stumbling block in school was quadratic equations and it's been alot of years
Here your actually following the correct order of operations and the properties of math.
There are no parenthesis so you can clean start from left to right regardless of whether division or multiplication comes first and your not disrupting any properties here or order of operations.
When there is a number next to parenthesis then you have to evaluate the number and whatever is inside the parenthesis as a term and solve for it before it is divided or multiplied.
Order of operations follows properties of math, order of operations are as such because they follow the properties of math and again here starting from left to right is the correct way because there are no parenthesis to begin with, the numbers themselves are plain terms with no further break downs needed so you straight out just start going from left to right.
You get a golden star sticker and 100% for the result of this equation lol !!!! *_*
Yeah I hear you and most likely you will probably not find an equation like that in Algebra. In any event the distribution property, commutative property and associative properties and their different types apply here IME.‘
An addendum to this previous post:
Once again, I’m NOT trying to state this as some sort of fact that “proves” or “disproves” anything, but rather, I’m just conveying what I have found (or more accurately, what I haven’t found), as it relates to the “Distributive Properties” argument.
So I scoured that Algebra book I mentioned previously and actually found nothing that resembled a “division sign” (÷) followed by “distributive properties” type equation a(b+c).
In other words, I found nothing that even remotely suggests that our 6÷2(1+2) expression is a thing... which actually struck me as being quite odd.
I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but (assuming the people who wrote that textbook were aware) I can only conclude at this time that they purposely avoided it altogether to remove any chance for misunderstanding or maybe never considered it in the first place because it wasn’t concise enough.
If that is the case then I give them a lot of credit for their foresight.
Anyway, I’m not saying a÷b(c+d) doesn’t exist, just that I haven’t discovered the “missing link” to support its existence...
...from a reputable source...