Distributive property of multiplication

drkent3
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
OK - this one has been argued to death in several different threads, but the answers have been less than satisfactory... so someone provide a reason why I am wrong here:

48 / 2(9 + 3) = 2.

Why? Because the distributive property of multiplication means that 2(9+3) = (2*9+2*3).

For example, what if we replace (9+3) with x? 48 / 2x = ?

Yes? No?

(Apologies in advance for posting yet again that which everyone thinks has been put to rest).
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
That is NOT a matter of the "distributive property", it is just a matter of your notation being ambiguous. That could be interpreted as either
48/(2(9+3))= \frac{48}{2(9+ 3)}= \frac{48}{2(12)}= \frac{48}{24}= 2
or as
(48/2)(9+ 3)= \frac{48}{2}\left(9+ 3\right)= 24(12)= 288

Use parentheses to make your meaning clear.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
28K
Replies
1
Views
2K
2
Replies
78
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top