It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# 6÷2(1+2)=?

page: 24
15
share:

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 09:45 AM

Originally posted by MegaMind

Originally posted by grey580
sigh.

Valid answers to this equation are both 1 and 9.

The equation is ambiguous.

And you all need to recognize this.

minhauong.blogspot.com...
edit on 7-5-2011 by SkyEvolved because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2011 by SkyEvolved because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 09:49 AM

Originally posted by ASeeker343

ps: i never said to ignore PEDMAS or BEDMAS because they are the same and they are relevant ... what i am saying is the juxtaposition of the "2" next to the brackets/parenthesis has the SAME order sequence as exponents, period.

Honor93 I am curious to your response to the PHD math professor Grey580 posted. Also, I checked your oakroadsystems link again, and the reason I didnt respond to it or reference it at all is because it doesnt mention your "juxtaposition rule" in this form at all, unless I am just missing it, in which case please direct me more precisely. I understand the order of operations. Parentheses take precedence over exponents which take precedence over multiplication and division which take precedence over addition and subtraction. I understand that you have been taught that multiplication by juxtaposition takes precedence, not saying I dont believe you, I am just failing to see any evidene for your claim (aside from the purplemath link and the AMS link, although that was very ambiguous in itself). Any other source I have seen defines a*(b) = a(b) = a*b. Implied multiplication is the same as signed multiplication. I have never heard that multiplication by juxtaposition jumps to the same order of precedence as exponents. That seems ridiculous to me. It is not an exponent, nothing is being taken to a power, its just multiplication. And dont just say you learned it back when you were getting honors in math 40+ years ago. Not saying I doubt it at all, its just a very unsatisfactory ruling on the subject.

Perhaps this is part of the problem. You were educated before computers and calculators were in use, so perhaps conventions and notations have changed since then. Because computers and calculators are used to the extent that they are today, it would make sense for the math taught to be consistent with that. It wouldn't make sense to teach students one convention that will be at odds with convention they will use in electronic devices. It appears to me that both answers can be interpreted as valid, but I have seen very little proof of the "juxtapositon rule", and aside from your posts, nothing that would put it on the order of exponents.

minhauong.blogspot.com...
edit on 7-5-2011 by SkyEvolved because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 09:50 AM

edit on 7-5-2011 by SkyEvolved because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 12:43 PM
You've all been trolled.

Enjoy it.

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 07:40 AM

Originally posted by smallpeeps
It would be such a weird synchronicity if a similar thread was bouncing on some other domain, and yet neither thread mentioned the other!

Oh fnord the love of God! Haha.

No but serious, OP's Casio does maths differently. You guys are snobbering all over the place. But I bet on that other domain, they'd be even dumber. Haha, math sucks but its fun. Like flagellation or tattoos.

No reply? Everyone's just flying forward on the dumb ol' Internet, no forum cross-chatter. BORING, what a bunch of tards and snobs. Truly pathetic, and I ain't talking bout maths.

Fact of the matter as I said, is that Casio does maths differently because they are better. Computer calcs, are dumber.

The old-school calcs do math like this:

293 x 135

Casio will make two columns but he does the bulk of the equasion in the first move:

293 x 100 = 29300

And the next move the Casio makes is the next efficient move:

293 x 10 = 2930

And it simply repeats that until no "10's" will fit anymore:

293 x 10 = 2930
293 x 10 = 2930 ...which after three cycles in this way, give a grand total so far of:

29300 + 2930 + 2930 + 2930 = 38,090 so far

See, the Casio knows that in two basic moves (and a summing total) it can get closer to the answer very quick, the rest is just details, after two moves essentially, the Casio has 38,090 and the answer is 39,555 so in two moves, the Casio gets you to within 95% of the correct answer. If you learn to do math better, you will think like a Casio, not your idiot math teacher, who probably doesn't teach you to start with the big math first (as above), no they teach human children to start with the peanuts and then work toward the bigger math LAST. That's just stupid, as the Casio proves here (with my help of course).

To continue and find the answer, the Casio knows that 38,090 as it's total, after two moves and a sum, and it knows it needs to keep going but it knows that the last move 293 x 10 puts it over the limit so it switches to the "ones" column and simply adds 293 to the amount until it reaches the operand which is "135" so it already used up its 1 100's value and its 3 10's values so it knows it has only 5 steps left, which is simply to add 293 five times and viola! The answer is perfected. BUT the Casio knew the ballpark of the answer, after only ONE MOVE, which is the exact opposite as to how math gets taught.

The Casio, is smarter, and faster. You get more tech, but you all are retarded. Sorry but I watched this thread on two domains and you all get the biggest fattest F in the history of math. Except the one dude above who explained this somewhat. He gets a C.

Clear the snobber from your faces and try to increase the Inter-domain commo on the IP network. It's war you kow, you can't just be dipshatz hiding out in your favorite domain and remaining stupid.

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 08:49 AM
To go further, let's see how the Casio and its peers of the 1960s (rise of the transistor) do the equasion above, in reverse (called 'division')

Well of course as shown above, "multiplication" as such, is nothing except ordered summing. Period.

Similarly, division is nothing but ordered subtraction.

So as some have mentioned, P E MDAS which is a mnemonic where the first two, P (Parens or Brackets let's say) and E (Exponents also called 'powers') are obvious, but the remaining components, MDAS Are actually a bit out of order (therein lies the debate) in that M is really only A anyways, and D is really only S! Let us not snobber on ourselves, let us simply explain the context, the goals, and the roadblocks or sticking points.

To demonstrate, in the example above, 293 x 135 = 39,555

So then let's input 135 into 39,555.

135 / 39555 = ???

As before there are three columns if we include the result column.

Casio takes this and uses nothing but obvious logic. If you are going three places into five places, it can safely add two zeros to the dividend ergo: 13,500 and Casio can simply double that safely into 26,055 so it knows that 200 is close to the quotient (result) that can be logically expected. it does this via subtraction, taking the biggest chunks first. So the result is has, is "200", and as we know, it WILL arrive at the answer, which is 293.

The Casio really is just a chess player, fewest moves to victory wins. It is like this because the higher order which exists in the math knowledge of a simple machine. It has one purpose: Fast moves to victory.

So it has made two logical subtractive moves and is zeroing-in (if you will) on the result, aka the quotient. So it has 26,055 subtracted so far (S and D are the SAME thing) and the divisor is 39,555 so it then goes to the next lower resolution, the tens, and it gets 1350 which can be tacked on and subtracted thusly:

12555
1350 -
result held = 210
11205
1350-
result held = 220
9855
1350 -
result held = 230
8505
1350-
result held = 240

...and so on until it moves into the 1's columns and finally the last move is perfect.

So again, I am a country dummy, but I know that you guys really do whack-off to your own snobbery. I do believe there is great debate as to Wolfram's "new kind of science" as many before him had known fractals and simple machines, and so on. I for one found his book to be truly enlightening as to how damn simple math could be, if only the professors and scientist jerkwads could be forcibly held down and have their snob-glands removed.

Oh and the explanation above was not my authorship but was borrowed from a book, "Math Wiz" or something, I can't remember the title, but it was one of those math-shortcut books, so I have to give props to that dude and his book, whose name I cannot remember. Hey! Get that math wiz shortcut dude and Mr. Wolfram as your President and Vice President and we'd dominate the world. Oh but they would have to use old school Casio machines to prove their maths of course.

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:04 PM
"My god! It's full of a lack of stars!"

Anyway, to take this further... (feel free to post this on other domains as well)

Let us consider Chewbacca, and sasquatch, if we shall. For the wookie, as we know, is a tool user.

Therefore, he is not really a pencil sort of tool user, but an arms-ripping-out-of-sockets tool user, meaning, he flies spaceships and has adventures, not sitting around pushing pencils. LAME. The wookie, for example, knows this.

Observe that Chewbacca fir example, understands electricity. That is because he only needs enough math, to become effective enough to get a spaceship and have adventures. Once he groks the electronics aspects of math, he is going to be able to get a spaceship gig and hopefully achieve such bonds with people as to incur the lifedebt which the wookie is always on the lookout to give. So I am like the wookie, in that for me, math is a vehicle to understand electronics. Now that may be simplistic for the NASA engineer, but can such men ever be satisfied? I say no.

Therefore in my case, when I think of the divison line, I think "rational number" which means, "ratio" meaning "this is to that". However, when I think of this I always find myself visualizing Ohm's law, which is a relational, practical law, which helps to resolve all the bullshatzz in regards to math.

Ohms law says current x resistance = volts. So my point is this: Math'sturbators can take this simple, life-affirming (and life saving!) truth, and they can get their snobber all over a very simple principle. It is this: All your MDAS are belong to BUS.

Meaning even the dumbest wookie knows that when you gets electrons flowing in a circuit, you are good to go!

This means this: Ohm's law should be taught in preschool. Therefore do all things in math as rubber, hit the road. Because MDAS are all happening at the same time. In truth, ohms law describes a tug of war, a pulling and pushing between two forces. In truth, amps are a measure of draw across to points (voltage) so if you see a number, then visualize it as the quotient and also as impedance, because you will learn to see ohms (resistance) right below it, as a "ratio-nal" number meaning this-to-that. All three exist at the same time that is the point of a ratio.

Consider please, that the simpler way says this: Counting stuff makes sense up to a certain point, and also for fun, but to try and make things that happen in motion (meaning, over time) like electronics, into discreet moment-to-moment things on piece of paper, is 90% mathsturbatory. Now, that's fun, but it is all in your brain. Whereas, math that actually produce fun times with a real fine lady like the Millennium Falcon, is not mathsturbatory, but is effective, flowing, and very very real. Nerds, listen up because there's levels to this stuff I am posting here. You know, like what exactly is electricity? And what does is mean to be shocking? Is it shocking for me to point out that all your children in school have mathsturbatory teachers whose goal is to prevent real electricity from flowing in America?

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:00 AM
I honestly cannot believe that this thread has gotten to 24 pages.

To the people who are saying the answer is 1:

Multiplication and division take the same precedence and where both exist in a problem such as this, the operations must be performed from left to right. For the answer to be 1, you would need to force the multiplication to occur first by placing it within an additional set of parenthesis as follows:

6/(2(2+1))

As it is written however, the division must occur first and hence the answer is 9. If you don't believe me then please refer to MATLAB, C+, C++, python, Google calculator, Wolfram alpha, etc. Alternatively, there are a number of threads in physics forums that you are free to google.

PEDMAS or BEDMAS or whatever it is you guys are using is misleading in the sense that it somehow implies a difference in the priority of division/multiplication and addition/subtraction. In reality, division and multiplication are considered the same thing, as are addition and subtraction. Division is in fact just multiplication of the reciprocal and subtraction is similarly considered to be the addition of a negative number. In fact, you very really see a division sign in math past high school level.

In any case, the point is that addition/subtraction and multiplication/division have the same priority and should be treated as such.

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:18 AM

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
I honestly cannot believe that this thread has gotten to 24 pages.

To the people who are saying the answer is 1:

Multiplication and division take the same precedence and where both exist in a problem such as this, the operations must be performed from left to right. For the answer to be 1, you would need to force the multiplication to occur first by placing it within an additional set of parenthesis as follows:

6/(2(2+1))

As it is written however, the division must occur first and hence the answer is 9. If you don't believe me then please refer to MATLAB, C+, C++, python, Google calculator, Wolfram alpha, etc. Alternatively, there are a number of threads in physics forums that you are free to google.

PEDMAS or BEDMAS or whatever it is you guys are using is misleading in the sense that it somehow implies a difference in the priority of division/multiplication and addition/subtraction. In reality, division and multiplication are considered the same thing, as are addition and subtraction. Division is in fact just multiplication of the reciprocal and subtraction is similarly considered to be the addition of a negative number. In fact, you very really see a division sign in math past high school level.

In any case, the point is that addition/subtraction and multiplication/division have the same priority and should be treated as such.

Awesome! Another who gets it. I posted a very similar thing like 4 pages back saying that division is inverse multiplication. 6 * (1/2) * (1 + 2) = 9

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:19 AM

So you linked to another fool who can't follow basic instructions in math .....

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 08:55 AM
6÷2(1+2)=?

6 ÷ (2*1 + 2*2)

6 ÷ (2 + 4)

6 ÷ (6)

= 1

Because you must distribute the term (2) connected by parenthesis before performing division.

THE 2 CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE PARENTHESIS!!!

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:31 AM
Again the equation is poorly written.
It is ambiguous.

Even a string theorist agrees. If he gave a test he'd accept both answers.

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:50 AM

A string theorist doesn't even know what universe he is in, what began it, or whether it is expanding or not.

I think I'll trust my rudimentary knowledge of algebra. Thanks.

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:59 AM

I'm just presenting a point of view.

However the problem isn't the math. It's the equation.

This equation is like a transvestite hooker with small hands and a barely noticeable Adams apple..

Some will say it's 9 it's a man baby!
Some will swear up and down that's the answer is 1 and she's a fly ass female. Those guys are the ones ending up on Jerry Springer getting the surprise of their life. Screaming, "I ain't gay!" while we all get a laugh.

In the end it's ambiguous. And wholly dependent on your point of view.

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:49 AM

Ok, I see your point. It makes a lot of sense when you break it down in terms of prostitution.

I should just sit back and play cautious because there is something lurking beneath the dress of this equation.

Consider me a bit wiser.

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:42 PM

ok here goes this is why i was crap at math. I see this equation as follows

6 divided by 2(1+2) =a divided by b(c+b)

a divided by b(c+b) = multiply b into brackets to get a divided by bc+2b this is equal to 6 divided by 2+4 = do the division first and then the addition i get 6/2 = 3 + 4 = 7 hahaha

hmmmm obviously not a math genious her lmao. I always did get these things confused. So to me the question is is it 1 or 9 OR 7

But my first answer when the numbers where in place. 6/2*1 + 6/2*2 = 3 + 6 = 9
( oh and don't even get me started on 6/2 + 6/4 lol)

edit on 13/5/2011 by IAmD1 because: tongue in cheek

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:28 AM
its one?!

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:23 PM
1
See last example at:
www.purplemath.com...

"even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses outrank division. That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication.

Or an even better way to look at it:
You first simplify the expression by using the distributive property. Therefore you get:
6÷(2+4)=?
6÷6
www.algebra.com...

edit on 17-5-2011 by canselmi because: added the distributive property example

edit on 17-5-2011 by canselmi because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by canselmi
1
See last example at:
www.purplemath.com...

"even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses outrank division. That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication.

Or an even better way to look at it:
You first simplify the expression by using the distributive property. Therefore you get:
6÷(2+4)=?
6÷6
www.algebra.com...

edit on 17-5-2011 by canselmi because: added the distributive property example

edit on 17-5-2011 by canselmi because: (no reason given)

Read some of the posts in here. That is not how you do it and the answer is 9. Parenthesis first and then multiplication from left to right:

6/2(2+1)
= 6/2*3
=3*3
=9

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 08:55 AM
There is the rule called the Distributive Property. You may not remember it because it was taught back in elementary school, but believe me, it's real.
6÷2(1+2)=x
6÷(2+4)=x
6÷6=x
1=x

top topics

15