My question is whether I can write:

Let , the number of marbles with John is =x

Now here is the use of "with"correct?

Thank you

- Thread starter Abcd123kkk
- Start date

My question is whether I can write:

Let , the number of marbles with John is =x

Now here is the use of "with"correct?

Thank you

No.

And that's not the only error in the sentence.

As far as this sort of calculation is concerned, there is at least one set formula. I'm going back 60 years because, thank goodness, I did no maths after the age of 15, but I seem to recall that it went like this:

John and Lara have 45 marbles in total.

Let the number John has = x.

Then Lara has 45-x.

I am being educated in English and my parents do not speak in English.

The number of marbles with John = x

You mean the use of"with"wrong in

The number of marbles with John = x

Last edited by a moderator:

~~The number of marbles with John = x~~

You used

No.of marbles John has=x

But what is 'with' wrong?

No.of marbles John has=x

But what is 'with' wrong?

But~~what~~whyis 'with' wrong?

John and Lara had [=possessed/owned] 45 marbles in total

Just a note: We don't do "maths" in American English.[...]I did no maths after the age of 15,[...].

We take math (study math); and we do math problems (solve math questions).

I did not write "You used

No.of marbles John has=x

~~But what is 'with' wrong?~~

"No." is short for 'number' but it's not used in sentences. On the forum when we refer to posts we use the sign # for the post number. I'm not sure how widespread this is outside of the USA.

I did not write "No.of marbles". I wrote"The numberof marbles".

"No." is short for 'number' but it's not used in sentences. On the forum when we refer to posts we use the sign # for the post number. I'm not sure how widespread this is outside of the USA.

I cannot recall when I last used "No." to represent "number". It looks distinctly old fashioned to my eye (in the USA).

It's possible that most older Brits would not know the # symbol.

From the BBC this February:

And in the Guardian last June (but as a headline):

It appears several times here: Prime Ministers and No. 10 - History of government

And I'm sure you'll be fascinated by this snippet I found on Wiki: "