Moved - LookAgain strikes again

2 p + 3 p = 600
5 p = 600
p = 600/5 = 120 : so 240 and 360

NOTE: above contains "illegal spacing" :shock:
Then I suggest you get you ill eagle well by catching the Cre because
CRE ATE HER SPACER
|_______improper space_ __________|

You may then use the
CREATEHER SPACER
|_______proper space____________|

I'm sure lookagain has some for sail.
 
The long way around:

Suppose you have two people get A and B amounts of a total amount D in a ratio of a to b. Then
A / B = a / b
or
A = (a / b) B
We also have
A + B = D
so
(a / b ) B + B = D
and
(a + b) B = b D
or
B = \(\displaystyle \frac{b}{a + b}\) D
and, since B = (b / a) A
A = \(\displaystyle \frac{a}{a + b}\) D

So it looks like the denominator is gotten by adding the two parts.
Your post doesn't count. Try it again.

2 p + 3 p = 600
5 p = 600
p = 600/5 = 120 : so 240 and 360
Denis, yours is meaningless, too. Try again.



Refer to this:

http://www.freemathhelp.com/forum/t...f-these-expressions-correctly-shows-a-product


 
Last edited:
Ask yourself what number divided by 5 equals 20.

That's not very helpful, Jomo. For one thing, it doesn't show the algebra.


abeblack2014, look at this:

\(\displaystyle \dfrac{x}{5} \ = \ 20\)

\(\displaystyle \dfrac{5}{1}\bigg(\dfrac{x}{5}\bigg) \ = \ 5(20)\)

\(\displaystyle x \ = \ ?\)
 
That's not very helpful, Jomo. For one thing, it doesn't show the algebra.


abeblack2014, look at this:

\(\displaystyle \dfrac{x}{5} \ = \ 20\)

\(\displaystyle \dfrac{5}{1}\bigg(\dfrac{x}{5}\bigg) \ = \ 5(20)\)

\(\displaystyle x \ = \ ?\)
No, I do not agree with you at all. What you are doing is mechanical. This does not promote any real learning and absolutely no understanding of the problem.
Like everyone else when I was around 5 yrs old I knew that 1+1=2. Yet in high school algebra my teacher (very bad choice of a word) told us to solve x+1=2 we should subtract 1 from both sides. Why would anyone think that that problem is asking what plus one equals two based on the method that I was shown? Come on and promote some learning.
 
Once again the fickle finger of buckups strikes trying to find something he knows
something about but still failing but never the less making an _ss of himself

Ishuda, you're quite silly and immature. I've given you ample opportunities to correct the nonsense
you post. And you draw more attention to yourself by trying to blame me for your own errors instead
of manning up (as the quote box shows above). Stop with the name-calling. You're desperate.

Recall, from your own words, I am your master. And I have tried to be diligent about punishing you on here
about posting nonsense. When you decide to start caring about typing actual meaningful lines as regards
to spacing of characters, then I will have no problem with you in that regard.
 
No, I do not agree with you at all.

Whether you agree with me or not does not matter. I stated a necessary fact/truth behind
mine. Yours is working off of some emotionalism that is not germane to proper solving of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Whether you agree with me or not does not matter. I stated a necessary fact/truth behind
mine. Yours is working off of some emotionalism that is not germane to proper solving of the problem.
Every student should know how to convert a division problem to a multiplication problem and visa versa. If you do not see this then that is sad. Also, get off this emotionalism trip.
 
That's not very helpful, Jomo. For one thing, it doesn't show the algebra.


abeblack2014, look at this:

\(\displaystyle \dfrac{x}{5} \ = \ 20\)

\(\displaystyle \dfrac{5}{1}\bigg(\dfrac{x}{5}\bigg) \ = \ 5(20)\)

\(\displaystyle x \ = \ ?\)
Why are you multiplying both sides by different looking things?
 
Special Warning: Beer soaked rambling/opinion/observation/reckoning ahead. Read at your own risk. To be taken seriously. In all event shall the wandering math knight-errant Sir jonah in his inebriated state be liable to anyone for special, collateral, incidental, or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of the use of his beer (and tequila) powered views.
Jomo, Jomo...don't you know that Lookagain
has been granted special privileges...
It is useless to argue with him:
1: he is always right
2: he is never wrong
3: he is my zero, whoops, hero
The following are facts about Denis:

..........................................................................
.............................................................................
.........................................................................

All three of the above are confirmed, just in the same way that numbers 1 - 3
above in the quote box have been.
Facts you say?
What are your evidences for throwing around these serious and damaging allegations?
If you cannot prove these wild allegations, I say off with your head.
It's one thing to criticize someone for their "errors" but it's quite another to accuse someone of grave misconduct.

I believe the time for you to be banned has come.
What say you Sir Ted?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hope that SICK post of yours is sufficient to get you banned...

Nothing about the post is "sick." I stated that they have been confirmed in the same way
as what you stated about me, Denis, which are ** all absurdly false.**


They have the same truth value.

Retract your absurd FALSE statements about me, Denis Borris.



- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


**** And, Denis, according to you, if I'm never wrong, then what I stated about you is true. I used

what you stated against me against you. ****


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -




<clueless>

jonah,
I think the time has come for you to get a clue about me making my point.
 
Last edited:
Special Warning: Beer soaked rambling/opinion/observation/reckoning ahead. Read at your own risk. To be taken seriously. In all event shall the wandering math knight-errant Sir jonah in his inebriated state be liable to anyone for special, collateral, incidental, or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of the use of his beer (and tequila) powered views.
jonah,
I think the time has come for you to get a clue about me making my point.
Dear me, Mr. lookagain. Dear me!
I was under the impression that your policy was to avoid replying to my drunken posts and Sir daon's taunts.
What could have brought about this drastic change of policy?
What exactly is your point?
 
I'm reverting to what I was doing up to a few days ago:
treating Lookagain as a clown not worth arguing with...

"Treating me as a clown!?" -------> You're the clown!

Go put some some ointment on your sores, because I turned your nonsense around
and used it against you, Denis.


Denis said:
I acted very stupidly and made absurd lies. And I got burnt
for doing so. I'm the one who can't make valid arguments.



And don't forget how subservient you are to me. I've got the following "facts"
to back me up. Got it!?

Lookagain
has been granted special privileges...
It is useless to argue with him:
1: he is always right
2: he is never wrong
3: he is my hero
 
lookagain nba

Okay done .... banned him... for 7 days.

Next time lifetime ban....
 
You and other moderators are selective in who you decide to [ban].

Of course we are. Judgement calls lie at the very heart of community moderation. In other words, it is a moderator's responsibility to be selective.

EG:

Member-1 calls member-2 ignorant. Member-2 responds by calling member-1 a psychotic liar. A moderator makes a judgement call with respect to the
forum rules, considering the history of each member and any previous warnings issued. The moderator selects member-2 for disciplinary action.

Moderators are also selective in regards to the extent of any discipline.

EG:

One moderator decides on a 30-day suspension for stike 1. Another moderator decides on a 7-day suspension for strike 2, whereas the former moderator might have decided on a 60-day suspension.

Nobody goes to moderator school. Neither the site owner nor the other moderators expressed any interest toward development of protocol or unification of certain moderation actions, when I suggested it some time ago.

That's just the way it is, lookagain, at this site. I urge any members who cannot hang out here in harmony with subjective administration of the site to move on because the administration is what it is.


Favoritism is rank here.

I hope that you find a way to stick around long enough for this perception to change because a majority of your posts to students are helpful. :cool:
 
Top