Why is this true?

???

>>8627716
only if X, Y and B are elements of a field, if concatenation of symbols implies multiplication, and the vertical bar implies division as in ordinary arithmetic

Y = Y/1

>>8627716
It's the distributive property of multiplication you mong.

>>8627716
Because multiplication is commutative and associative.
[math](XY)B^{-1}=X(YB^{-1})=X(B^{-1}Y)=(XB^{-1})Y[/math]

XY/B = XY(B)^-1 = X(B)^-1Y

>>8627725
>vertical bar
All this effort to be pedantic, and you still fuck it up.

>>8627738
Please elaborate. Remind me what the distributive property is. Fucking mong.

think of it like you aren't dividing by B, but multiplying by B^-1

[math] \displaystyle
\frac{4\cdot 6}{2}=\frac{4}{2}\cdot 6=i^{2}\left ( -\frac{1}{12}
\right )^{-1}
[/math]

File: tfw.jpg (23KB, 385x385px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 385x385px

>>8627764
end me now

>>8627805
Do it yourself, roodypoo

>>8627716
>Why does multiplication commute with division?

it just does. by definition

>>8627730
this

>>8627764
hahahha didnt realize it until you said it.

>>8627799
nice :D

>>8627716
Because division is just multiplication by the multiplicative inverse.

>>8627716
Why does x*y*1/b equal xy/b?

>>8628048
because A=A*1

>>8627777

Impressive digits

>>8627747
>>8627747
best post here

>>8628370
idiocracy

They are merely different ways of modeling the same concise answer.

The answer you might be looking for is that division represents a ratio of the numerator over the denom so they are bound to affect all multiplicants.

>>8627716
I get why XY/B = X(Y/B) but I don't get why log (XY/B) = logX + log(Y/B)

>>8627747

This /thread

>>8627716
Only if Y=1

>>8628710
[math]\log{a\cdot b} = \log{a}+\log{b}[/math]
[math]\log{\frac{a}{b}} = \log{a}-\log{b} [/math]

>>8627716
Syntax

>>8628370
>women and niggers

>>8627716
Division is multiplying by 1/x.
Multiplication is commutative.

If there is no operation sign it either means AND or multiplication.

>>8629154
AND is multiplication :^)

How do I differ Mixed Numbers from Multiplication?

>>8627716
Yes, assuming certain conditions.
>>8627725
I would also add one more:
Multiplication needs to be commutative. That means that they have to be scalars (yes, I know that other ways are possible, but I would need more lines).

>>8627777
>Remind me what the distributive property is
Jesus Christ I mean I always thought this board was full of undergrads and high schoolers but it's stuff like this that really makes me question why I take anything here seriously.

>>8627716
Multiplication is associative and commutative. It doesn't matter what order you perform multiplication at all.

>over 30 posts for this

jesus christ

>>8627716
(1/Y)(X/B) = ((XY)/B)
(1/X)(Y/B) = ((XY)/B)

Yeah no shit.

???

File: 14641946_1157902000957442_4087266572216574405_n.png.jpg (27KB, 480x474px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x474px

Say you and your crew sit down to enjoy X bottles of vodka of volume Y between the B of you. You can either share each bottle in sequence pouring Y/B per person per bottle, repeating the process X times, each person will end up with xy/b overall consumption. Now, if you're not a scheming cunt who plans to cheat his homeboys by pouring himself some more on the side, you'll pour the drinks out at the start. The total volume is XY so between B people you get xy/b. QED

>>8627799
Beautiful, and lovely double dubs as well.

>>8627716
Because you're just changing the order of the operations.

Take X, scale up by factor Y, then scale down by factor B.

Or take X, scale down by factor B, then scale up by factor Y.

>>8627799
Okay so 1/(1/12) = 12. As does 24/2. But I don't understand what your post proved.

>>8627716
PEMDAS brah

>>8631798
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww

>>8631615
Kek

File: ben.jpg (6KB, 300x204px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x204px

>>8627764
Well, it is vertical, from a certain point of view.

>>8627799
i isnt a real number so your example has nothing to do with the real problem OP posted

Level with me guys: does the number 12 have magic powers?

>>8631768
>Retard gives retarded explanation
Never change, /sci/.

>>8634081
Am I wrong, then?

I'm not a retard - simply not up on the math lingo like some are. I still have the ability to see for myself why it's so, regardless of how well I can express this in words.

Besides, it's just another perspective on the same thing - it might chime with some people.

>>8627716

Associative property.

(X*Y)(1/B) = (X*1/B)(Y)

>>8627716
is it always?
What if B is 0 :^)

>>8634169
Yes.

The limits of both equations would go to infinity.