Math: 6÷2(1+2) = ? | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 12:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Yes, but you didn't do step 1. So before anyone else says "Wrong" you may want to actually read something and educate yourself, and then prove ALL of the following references incorrect. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32057798 See below: --------------------------- [link to en.wikibooks.org] "We use the distributive property to help us find a way around the order of operations while still being sure that we keep the value of the expression." Distribute to REMOVE parentheses [link to www.algebra.com] Get Rid of parentheses with Distribution: [link to www.helpalgebra.com] If there is some factor multiplying the parentheses, then the only way to get rid of the parentheses is to multiply using the distributive law. [link to www.jamesbrennan.org] "When simplifying expressions with parentheses, you will be applying the Distributive Property." -purplemath These guys got it right, they use "Parentheses" in the order of operations to require Distributive Property. Ref: Purplemath The Distributive Property in ALgebra: The Distributive Property is handy to help you get rid of parentheses. a(b + c) = ab + ac [link to math.about.com] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 12:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 27301486 Germany 01/13/2013 12:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I applied your own rule, you fucktard. And all you have to say is, you proved it wrong. You're full of shit. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27301486 No you didn't. You didn't eliminate parentheses at all. You simply left them out at some point in solving. You're a liar. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 12:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Simplifying with Parentheses: [link to www.purplemath.com] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 12:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 13045367 Netherlands 01/13/2013 12:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 12:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 27301486 Germany 01/13/2013 12:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 12:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 27301486 Germany 01/13/2013 12:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 12:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 27301486 Germany 01/13/2013 12:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 12:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 12:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to en.wikibooks.org] Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32057798 "We use the distributive property to help us find a way around the order of operations while still being sure that we keep the value of the expression." Distribute to REMOVE parentheses [link to www.algebra.com] Get Rid of parentheses with Distribution: [link to www.helpalgebra.com] If there is some factor multiplying the parentheses, then the only way to get rid of the parentheses is to multiply using the distributive law. [link to www.jamesbrennan.org] "When simplifying expressions with parentheses, you will be applying the Distributive Property." [link to www.purplemath.com] The Distributive Property in ALgebra: The Distributive Property is handy to help you get rid of parentheses. a(b + c) = ab + ac [link to math.about.com] |
Person445 User ID: 11438968 Canada 01/13/2013 03:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32092078 United Kingdom 01/13/2013 03:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is pathetic. Quoting: Person445 The answer is 9. The answer will always be 9. Should we argue about 2+2 not equaling 4 now? The answer is not 1. Again this is how you solve this. 6÷2(1+2) = ? 3(3( =? 3 x 3 = 9 NOT 1. just end it. the answer is 9 I agree the answer is 9 ,i just worked it out wasn't hard to do even though this type of math wasn't in operation when i was in school or i was too thick back then probably the latter . |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 03:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Did they teach distribution in high school in the last 15 years? How in lord's name was I able to top my engineering calculus courses if I cannot do a simple problem like this?? If you want to say 6÷3(3) = 6÷3*3, you just left out the parentheses!! Can you leave out addition signs and negative signs at will too ???? Did you read anything on this page?? I love how everyone ignores basic math properties and then is adamant that they are right... it is so asinine . |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 15411952 Canada 01/13/2013 03:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 03:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 15411952 Canada 01/13/2013 03:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
davvi User ID: 3677166 United States 01/13/2013 04:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 04:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
davvi User ID: 3677166 United States 01/13/2013 04:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
kpduties User ID: 22309968 United States 01/13/2013 04:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 29145693 United States 01/13/2013 04:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 04:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 04:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is how you are supposed to do it, with an explanation of WHY... Distribute 2 into the parentheses. Why? because it is a factor of the original terms INSIDE them, and cannot be ripped apart. I will show you why: 6 = 4+2 = 2(2+1) = 2(3) The 2 is a common factor of 4 & 2. No matter which way you view it, the value 6 MUST maintain its value. Just as you cannot take the 4 from (4+2) and divide it into a number with the "+ 2". I cannot take the 2 from 2(2+1) and divide it into another number without the (2+1). You ARE allowed to distribute before division, or any other operator, since you are allowed to simplify any equation first. There are MANY references which state "Remove parentheses by distribution" Try Googling that as a search term. 6÷2(2+1) = 6÷(4+2) = 1 Now, some people have argued that you don't NEED to distribute the 2; you just add the 2+1, and end up with 2(3). Then they go on the say that this is the same as 2*(3). WRONG! You STILL have parentheses and STILL need to distribute that 2 inside them, for the reasons discussed about factoring above. Therefore you have this: 6÷2(3) and must distribute like this: 6÷2(3+0) = 6÷[2(3) + 2(0)] = 6÷6 = 1 These people who get 9 try and rip the 2 away from the parentheses by inserting a times symbol like this: 6÷2*(3), and then do the division of 6÷2 first. I explained the illegalities of doing this, since the 2 is a factor of the 2+1. Lastly, 6÷2 is NOT (6/2), as in (6/2)(2+1). This is totally incorrect, since it lacks that parentheses in the original equation. Check any online or written text. Leading fractions as a coefficient ALWAYS have ( ) around them. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 04:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
davvi User ID: 3677166 United States 01/13/2013 04:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That video is so goddamn wrong it is a sin. He says parentheses and then ignores them... and to make a public video to show how fucking retarded you are.... the irony is almost too much to bear.. it is 9. he did not ignore the parens... :havea: canucklehead. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 31519086 Australia 01/13/2013 04:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That video is so goddamn wrong it is a sin. He says parentheses and then ignores them... and to make a public video to show how fucking retarded you are.... the irony is almost too much to bear.. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32057798 Yeah!! He said "you've all seen this problem on facebook", WELL NO I HAVEN"T!!!!! the maths is okay but |