6÷2(1+2)=?

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by ASeeker343

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by ASeeker343
Are you telling me that 6/2(3) is different than 6/2*3? If so i would disagree

ummmm, where did this come from and no i didn't say such a thing, besides ... your 6/2*3 uses symbols before my time. it isn't an equation we would have seen back then. however, if you think 6/2*3 is the same as 6 divided by 2(2+1), you are sadly mistaken.

we agree on the stuff inside the parentheses: (2+1) = 3

good start

6÷2(1+2)

6÷2(3)

What I am saying is that the 2(3) does not put the multiplication before the division. 6÷2(3) = 6÷2x3.

Left to right. Parentheses state the argument inside them must be performed first, not anything adjacent as well. If you can provide me with solid proof otherwise ill eat crow but otherwise, 6÷2x3 = 9 Left to right.

www.youtube.com...

when you are dealing with a single integer, you are correct but this integer is multiplying a collective inside the parenthesis. the equation 2(2+1) is a stand alone equation, or at least it always has been ... with the progressivisms of today, i can no longer be sure. Never have i seen this: 2*(2+1), as you are implying.

however, 2(2+1) has always been defined or as another stated "distributed" as (2+1)+(2+1), which = 6.
not arguing mind you and i know better than to argue with a machine ... just try to remember, humans program them there 'machines'. and who said the programmers were up to date when these programs y'all are using were written?
For the record, I graduated (with math honors) long before any of these machines were even conceived.

Fair enough, I understand exactly what you are saying and I can understand how the problem can be interpreted as such. However I am saying that you cant separate the 2 from the division in order to distribute it. That is going out of order according to PEMDAS, unless 6÷2x3 means something different than 6÷2(3) which I am stating to be false. Most algebraic distributions are seen with addition... for example 6+ 2(1+2). In which case what you are doing is completely correct. However in this case you must distribute the 6/2. 3(2+1) = 9. You cant just pull the two off like that.

And for the record, Im not using a calculator either. I mentioned that as a side note but im doin this all with the brain God gave me. Also I am an engineering student so I have taken all of the math I can handle. I still think this is a poorly written problem that leads to interpretation issues, but Im still goin with 9

Alright well here's my logic, when i see this:



Your logic is this:



But to me this, see bellow, being the same as above prove that it cannot be nine.



6/2(1+2)=!=(6/2)(1+2)

reply to post by Honor93


I wish I could give you the benefit of the doubt, but no, I can't.

Surely, someone who has an honors in math would understand why 1 can't be the answer.

Sets and Logic as a class should answer this. The difference is extremely important to those in the know.


Lets make 6 equal x.

x/2(2+1) is (1/2)*x*(2+1).

That equals .5*x*3 which when 6 is substituted for x is .5*6*3.

.5*6*3 = 9.

reply to post by Whatsreal


A string instrument.
That the tone is made from hammers striking the strings is irrelevant.

reply to post by MallardDuck


Your second picture is the OP's original question. Good visuals. The second picture is basically my entire argument in a nutshell

reply to post by A.M.L.


Im with A.M.L. on this one.

I could get into a deep algebraic explanation but its getting late. Maybe tomorrow

php
$var = 6;
$var2 = 2;
$var3 = 1;
$var4 = 2;
$answer = $var / $var2 * ( $var3 + $var4 );
echo $answer ;

reply to post by grey580


Oops. My bad no result. In any case. The php programing language returns a 9.
I'll try C# in the morning from work.

Originally posted by ASeeker343

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by ASeeker343

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by ASeeker343
Are you telling me that 6/2(3) is different than 6/2*3? If so i would disagree

ummmm, where did this come from and no i didn't say such a thing, besides ... your 6/2*3 uses symbols before my time. it isn't an equation we would have seen back then. however, if you think 6/2*3 is the same as 6 divided by 2(2+1), you are sadly mistaken.

we agree on the stuff inside the parentheses: (2+1) = 3

good start

6÷2(1+2)

6÷2(3)

What I am saying is that the 2(3) does not put the multiplication before the division. 6÷2(3) = 6÷2x3.

Left to right. Parentheses state the argument inside them must be performed first, not anything adjacent as well. If you can provide me with solid proof otherwise ill eat crow but otherwise, 6÷2x3 = 9 Left to right.

www.youtube.com...

when you are dealing with a single integer, you are correct but this integer is multiplying a collective inside the parenthesis. the equation 2(2+1) is a stand alone equation, or at least it always has been ... with the progressivisms of today, i can no longer be sure. Never have i seen this: 2*(2+1), as you are implying.

however, 2(2+1) has always been defined or as another stated "distributed" as (2+1)+(2+1), which = 6.
not arguing mind you and i know better than to argue with a machine ... just try to remember, humans program them there 'machines'. and who said the programmers were up to date when these programs y'all are using were written?
For the record, I graduated (with math honors) long before any of these machines were even conceived.

Fair enough, I understand exactly what you are saying and I can understand how the problem can be interpreted as such. However I am saying that you cant separate the 2 from the division in order to distribute it. That is going out of order according to PEMDAS, unless 6÷2x3 means something different than 6÷2(3) which I am stating to be false. Most algebraic distributions are seen with addition... for example 6+ 2(1+2). In which case what you are doing is completely correct. However in this case you must distribute the 6/2. 3(2+1) = 9. You cant just pull the two off like that.

And for the record, Im not using a calculator either. I mentioned that as a side note but im doin this all with the brain God gave me. Also I am an engineering student so I have taken all of the math I can handle. I still think this is a poorly written problem that leads to interpretation issues, but Im still goin with 9

Fair enough, i accept your 9 and firmly disagree.
and i'll raise you this ... solve for X
X/2 = 4[1+6(5-1)]
please?

It's 1 no matter what anyone says. If you have a Master Degree in whatever and say that its 9, then if I was your professor, I would seriously think about taking that degree away from you

6
---------
2(1+2)

6
--------
2*3

6
--------
6

=1

END OF STORY

Originally posted by A.M.L.
reply to post by Honor93

 

I wish I could give you the benefit of the doubt, but no, I can't.

Surely, someone who has an honors in math would understand why 1 can't be the answer.

Sets and Logic as a class should answer this. The difference is extremely important to those in the know.


Lets make 6 equal x.

x/2(2+1) is (1/2)*x*(2+1).

That equals .5*x*3 which when 6 is substituted for x is .5*6*3.

.5*6*3 = 9.

no and no ... they do not interpret identically ... nice try but you must go beyond linear thought.
abstract problems require abstract thought.
the 2 expressions are not the same or calculated similarly.
and your example is extremely misleading ...
Lets make 6 equal x.

x/2(2+1) is (1/2)*x*(2+1).
IF x=6 then the equation reads ... 6/2(2+1) ... in english that reads ~ six divided by two times two plus one.
there is no other definition and it should only be calculated as defined.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Whatsreal

 

A string instrument.
That the tone is made from hammers striking the strings is irrelevant.

awwwww, i missed this, what was the question?

Originally posted by Honor93
solve for X
X/2 = 4[1+6(5-1)]
please?

200


X/2=4[1+6*4]
x/2=4[1+24]
X/2=4*25
X/2=100
2*100=200

Originally posted by Earthscum

Originally posted by Honor93
solve for X
X/2 = 4[1+6(5-1)]
please?

200


X/2=4[1+6*4]
x/2=4[1+24]
X/2=4*25
X/2=100
2*100=200

edit on 2-5-2011 by Earthscum because: (no reason given)

That's what I got. If you got that, then how could you get 9 from the op?

It's 9 you fart knuckles!!!

It's 9 you fart knuckles!!!

I have no idea why this topic has so many replies nor do I understand why there is debate. Anyone with any education in maths knows that although PEMDAS states multiplication comes before division and addition precludes subtraction the order of operations is actually "first come, first serve" from left to right. The answer is 9. Even after a calculator has been proven to show the answer is 9 there is still debate?

Kinda makes me wonder about intelligence here.

Originally posted by prolific

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by prolific
it's still 6÷2(3) or otherwise know as 6÷2x3 = 9.
The only way to get one is if you do multiplication first which is an invalid move.

Because you work from left to right, just as you read from left to right.

Thus 6÷2(1+2)= 6÷2(3)= 3(3)= 9


It really doesn't get more simple than that. Well, besides:

6÷2(1+2)=

is the same as:

(6÷2)(1+2)=

Yes that is correct. He is working from right to left which violates the rules.
This thread scares me and makes me want to

.

actually, he is wrong ... the order of operations doesn't change because he added parenthesis.
the 2 expressions are not the same, equal or interchangeable.
6/2(2+1) is distributed as ...
6 / (2+1)+(2+1) -- only
above is the correct distribution ... not (6/2)(2+1)

if it read 81 / 3(2+1) the distribution would be
81 / (2+1)+(2+1)+(2+1) which would become 81 / (3+3+3)
then, the answer of "9" would apply.

edit to add: in a linear equation, as you folks are entering it into the calculators, the answer will be 9 ... however, this is not a linear problem and cannot be solved with linear calculations. try again.

to those who answered my 'raise' question, you are correct and i starred you ... so, how are you still arriving at 9 given the same rules applied?

reply to post by exponencial


you sir... are either mad or retarded to think you are the end all be all on this subject. You took elementary math? I am in intro to algebra in college and know it is 9. Learn before you teach is the advice I give to you.

reply to post by IamBoon


Haha, 2 different calculators said it is1 (so dont talk about calculators m8)

Uh Oh looks like we've got some geniuses among us!LMAO