## Math: 6÷2(1+2) = ? | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 04:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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 | |

davviFuture Dodo bird... 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.. Anonymous Coward 32057798 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 |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 04:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to en.wikibooks.org] Quoting: "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] Anonymous Coward 32057798 |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 04:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 04:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 1582540 United States 01/13/2013 04:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is how you are supposed to do it, with an explanation of WHY... Quoting: 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 32057798 Sweet... 6 ------- = 1 2*(1+2) |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 27256518 United States 01/13/2013 04:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | consider the division symbol 0/0 We are dealing with a fraction Something _________ Something 6/2(3) 6 ________ 2(3) 6 ________ 6 6/6 1 The solution to this problem is within the symbol. Is the symbol. Something _________ Something =1 Without a shadow of a doubt, the answer is 1. There is no way around it. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 05:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | consider the division symbol 0/0 Quoting: We are dealing with a fraction Something _________ Something 6/2(3) 6 ________ 2(3) 6 ________ 6 6/6 1 The solution to this problem is within the symbol. Is the symbol. Something _________ Something =1 Without a shadow of a doubt, the answer is 1. There is no way around it. Anonymous Coward 27256518 You mean like this? : [link to www.freeimagehosting.net] |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 19023838 United States 01/13/2013 07:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31519086 Australia 01/13/2013 07:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 19023838 United States 01/13/2013 07:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31519086 Australia 01/13/2013 07:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 09:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 09:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 09:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31519086 Australia 01/13/2013 09:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

claponUser ID: 32150039 United States 01/13/2013 09:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 09:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | what it comes down to is that some people say that the expression is the same as (6 ÷ 2) * (1+2) and some people say that it means 6 ÷ (2 * (1+2)) Quoting: BUT WHICH ONE IS CORRECT???? Anonymous Coward 31519086 It means 6 ÷ (2 * (1+2)) This is proven with Distribution Property. Therefore, the parentheses are not required and the initial equation is written 6 ÷ 2(2+1). Leading fractions absolutely require parentheses as in the example (1/2)n below. Also proven with common notation, ie,: 1/2n = 1/(2n) 0.5n = (1/2)n or simply n/2 |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31519086 Australia 01/13/2013 09:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | what it comes down to is that some people say that the expression is the same as (6 ÷ 2) * (1+2) and some people say that it means 6 ÷ (2 * (1+2)) Quoting: BUT WHICH ONE IS CORRECT???? Anonymous Coward 31519086 It means 6 ÷ (2 * (1+2)) This is proven with Distribution Property. Anonymous Coward 32057798 (6 ÷ 2) * (1+2) uses the Distributive Property as well. |

Only One User ID: 32069745 United States 01/13/2013 09:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Okay - the division symbol could be a fraction bar - but it is not in this case. The fraction bar acts like a set of parenthesis.....so, if the division here is like the fraction bar, then you should have used an set of parenthesis - but you did not. This defaults to PEMDAS and the answer is 9. |

Only One User ID: 32069745 United States 01/13/2013 09:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Okay - the division symbol could be a fraction bar - but it is not in this case. The fraction bar acts like a set of parenthesis.....so, if the division here is like the fraction bar, then you should have used a set of parenthesis - but you did not. This defaults to PEMDAS and the answer is 9. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32137123 United States 01/13/2013 09:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 10:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | what it comes down to is that some people say that the expression is the same as (6 ÷ 2) * (1+2) and some people say that it means 6 ÷ (2 * (1+2)) Quoting: BUT WHICH ONE IS CORRECT???? Anonymous Coward 31519086 It means 6 ÷ (2 * (1+2)) This is proven with Distribution Property. Anonymous Coward 32057798 (6 ÷ 2) * (1+2) uses the Distributive Property as well. Anonymous Coward 31519086 Sure does, only if the original equation had parentheses around the (6÷2) then you would be all set. FAIL. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 10:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 10:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31519086 Australia 01/13/2013 10:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | BUT WHICH ONE IS CORRECT???? Anonymous Coward 31519086 It means 6 ÷ (2 * (1+2)) This is proven with Distribution Property. Anonymous Coward 32057798 (6 ÷ 2) * (1+2) uses the Distributive Property as well. Anonymous Coward 31519086 Sure does, only if the original equation had parentheses around the (6÷2) then you would be all set. FAIL. Anonymous Coward 32057798 so the only reason you do the multiplication before the division is because the 6÷2 doesn't have parentheses around it? |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32137123 United States 01/13/2013 10:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | WTF. This simple equation took 100 pages to solve and discuss?? Quoting: 6÷2(1+2) 6 / 2(3) 3 * 3 = 9 Basic math. Even learned this in American public schools. Anonymous Coward 32137123 that is why you get 9. You only know basic math. Anonymous Coward 32057798 So what is your take on it? You can't just create new rules. 1+1 is 2 which is also basic math. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32137123 United States 01/13/2013 10:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | WTF. This simple equation took 100 pages to solve and discuss?? Quoting: 6÷2(1+2) 6 / 2(3) 3 * 3 = 9 Basic math. Even learned this in American public schools. Anonymous Coward 32137123 that is why you get 9. You only know basic math. Anonymous Coward 32057798 So what is your take on it? You can't just create new rules. 1+1 is 2 which is also basic math. Anonymous Coward 32137123 Well, I'm waiting. What is the advanced, magical math that solves the equation? |

- Researcher Finds Link Between Bankers & Wikileaks Affiliates Murders
- Google/Amazon To "Echo" Everything & Everyone In Your Home To NSA
- Scientists Discover New Lenses That Can See Invisible Entities
- DEVELOPING: ‘Solar Winds’ Spur Geomagnetic Storm That May Affect Power
- Awakened Humanity Awaits Fully Scripted Ending As Controversial Election Day Nears
- WIKILEAKS : Hillary Camp Discusses Blaming Vengeful "Benghazi Republicans" For Hillary Email Scandal
- A WARNING TO THE VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES DO NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON
- $340 billion per year in US healthcare costs linked to chemicals found in plastic, detergents, cosmetics and toys
- Election outcome scenarios reveal 95% chance of widespread post-election violence... streets of America to run red with blood
- Leaked emails expose Coca-Cola's political strategy: a propaganda front against public health and soda taxes
- No vaccine needed: Many children have become resistant to the effects of HIV through natural immunity
- Over 1 million Americans to become uninsured as Obamacare collapse accelerates
- Soylent food bars 'proudly made with GMOs' causing stomach problems, vomiting and diarrhea
- Obamacare premiums skyrocket by double-digits as economically traumatized Americans scream ENOUGH!
- They compromised the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HIS FULL SCHEDULE AND LOCATIONS
- Eric Braverman just asked for asylum from russia!!
- Meet The Man Who Can Expose "The Real Hillary Clinton Scandal"
- Leaked Email Reveals Sady Doyle, Other Liberal Bloggers Coordinated with Clinton Campaign on Sanders Hits
- What The WikiLeaks Emails Reveal About Branding Hillary
- WikiLeaks poisons Hillary’s relationship with left: After learning how Clinton feels about them, liberals vow to push back against her
- WikiLeaks emails show Clinton and advisers calling liberal heroes “puritanical,” “pompous,” “naive” and “dumb”
- Preparing for Post-Election Social Unrest
- Fleet of Android Robots to Begin Policing the Streets by 2017
- Exposed Viral Hoaxes Prove How Easy it is to Dupe the World with Disinfo
- In an Oligarchy, Voting is a Tool to Manufacture the Illusion of Consent