# Number of marbles with John

#### Abcd123kkk

##### Banned
I was solving a maths question. It had that John and Lara had 45 marbles in total .- ---------------and so on .
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.

#### heypresto

##### Senior Member
And that's not the only error in the sentence.

#### Hermione Golightly

##### Senior Member
I am curious to know if you are being educated in English and if your parents speak English at home, or if you are translating everything you ask us about.
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.

#### Abcd123kkk

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

You mean the use of"with"wrong in
The number of marbles with John = x

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Hermione Golightly

##### Senior Member
Thank you for that useful information. If you read my post #4 I explain why 'with John' is wrong and provide an alternative way of expressing the sum. Both #2 and #3 say it is wrong so why ask yet again.
The number of marbles with John = x

#### Abcd123kkk

##### Banned
You used
No.of marbles John has=x
But what is 'with' wrong?

#### PaulQ

##### Senior Member
But what why is 'with' wrong?
with means "accompanied by and together with" -> "He arrived at my house with his sister." -> "He arrived at my house accompanied by and together with his sister."

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

#### Packard

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

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

#### Hermione Golightly

##### Senior Member
You used
No.of marbles John has=x
But what is 'with' wrong?
I did not write "No. of marbles". I wrote "The number of 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.

#### Packard

##### Senior Member
I did not write "No. of marbles". I wrote "The number of 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).

#### Hermione Golightly

##### Senior Member
It looks archaic to me. I would have to have a look at documents such as receipts and orders to see what's used in the UK these days when one has Order (-) 37504/ Account (-)/Reference (-). Off-topic really, it's annoying to be misquoted like this.
It's possible that most older Brits would not know the # symbol.

#### Packard

##### Senior Member
When we quote to customers we either use "P/N" (part number) or simply "#".

I was trying to remember when I last saw a "No." and I believe it was in a parade featuring vintage fire trucks (not this one, but similar).

#### heypresto

##### Senior Member
It still occurs in BE evidently, but this may be a special case:

From the BBC this February: He's one of five former cabinet secretaries to speak to BBC Parliament about working inside No 10 Downing Street - the scary moments, cabinet splits and the occasional lighter side of life.

And in the Guardian last June (but as a headline): Theresa May squatting in No 10, says Emily Thornberry – video

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: "No. 10 Downing Street has a lift."

< Previous | Next >