Math: 6÷2(1+2) = ?

Lol, I meant pic of calc, but touche.

Whats incorrect? teach me.

6/2(1+2) = x --or-->> 6/((2)¹+(2)²) = x --or-->> 6/((2)¹+(2)¹+(2)¹) = x



-

Last Edited by DVCMCM on 01/18/2013 09:29 AM

That may work, but I always worry about human error with that sort of thing. Changing settings on calculator, wrong format etc.

With a website, I can tell if the equation was input exactly as the OP put it.

[link to imageshack.us]
[link to img255.imageshack.us]

the 6/2 would need distributed into the (2+1) if you want to do distribution.

As seen on every math website I have found.

Last Edited by Forgotten on 01/18/2013 09:34 AM

[link to imageshack.us]
[link to img255.imageshack.us]



If someone can show me 1 math website that comes up with 1 I will agree. Even though I can show 10+ websites with 9.

I just need 1. One website.

Anyone?

Calculators don't work with this equation, because of the logic involved.

Calculate the numerator, calculate the denominator, then divide.

I can see it both ways though.

This is a perfect example of the saying, it is and it is not.

Finally

No, not really.

[link to imageshack.us]
[link to img255.imageshack.us]



If someone can show me 1 math website that comes up with 1 I will agree. Even though I can show 10+ websites with 9.

I just need 1. One website.

Anyone?

Havent been able to find one. Have you?

I know you googled and tried though. Can you admit that you tried to find a website stating 1?

Like I said, I have found tons of "websites" that does not mean much though.

I did try a few calcs, 3 to be exact.

Does that make any of what I have already said any less true? No, and I have posted why more than once.

I just copy and pasted the equation into google search...

Guess what answer it gave me... 9!

Last Edited by Forgotten on 01/18/2013 09:43 AM

And guess what, look into the programming of google calc.

[link to www.electro-tech-online.com]

lol wrong link

Last Edited by Patrick Bateman on 01/18/2013 09:45 AM

When using the distributive property it applies to the 6/2, not just the 2.

It should actually be:
6/2(1+2)
3(1+2) (simplified)
3+6 (distributive property applied)
9 (answer)

When using the distributive property, the "parenthesis first" rule doesn't apply. One of the points of the distributive property is that there is generally something preventing you from doing the parenthesis's first (in more complex problems), and as such, is a "work around" to the "parenthesis first" rule. Hence why you simplify the outside, then apply the property.

Taken from...

[link to community.wolframalpha.com]

If you use simple math, you get 9.

If you treat it like a fractional equation it equals 1.

The problem with your evaluation has nothing to do with the distributive law. You have the order of operations incorrect; you're not accounting properly for multiplication's associativity.

As written, you have: 6/2*(1+2). (You left the multiplication out in your example, but I think you'll agree it's the same thing.) When deciding how to fully parenthesize this expression, you must take into account that division and multiplication are left-associative.

That means: 6/2*(1+2) = (6/2)*(1+2) NOT 6/(2*(1+2))

Left-associative operators work like this: a1*a2*a3*...*aN = (((a1*a2)*a3)*...)*aN

Since multiplication and division are left-associative, that means when you mix them, you get: a1/a2*a3/...*aN = (((a1/a2)*a3)/...)*aN

The confusion caused by your example is that the importance of the left-associativity of the division operator is obscured by the fact that you left the multiplication operator implied. Once you make it explicit and fully parenthesize the expression according to the precedence and associativity of the operators involved, the confusion lifts.

(Incidentally, if you're interested in an example of a right-associative operator and one of the neatest implications of an operator with this property, see currying.)

You cannot possibly post something I have not already read. It still maintains the expression is poorly stated and can be interpreted more than one way, resulting in more than one answer.

Fair enough. I agree the equation was meant to confuse people. But it does not change the fact that the answer is 9.


Have you been able to find any website that shows 1 yet? Still waiting for that. Can you admit you tried to find one?

Last Edited by Forgotten on 01/18/2013 09:53 AM

Google it, there are tons of websites. Online calcs? I'll admit it is more difficult to find now than it was a year ago. Like I said, I checked 3 and quit because all of the scientific ones used to say 1 and graphing wold say 9. I did this all over a year ago. So online ones now apparently have been re-programmed, hand held, the ones I have that are several years old at least, not so much.

that is the problem. Those programs were not designed to solve problems like this.

Ask wolfram what 6/2n =

Then when you get that answer, substitute 2+1 in for, and complete it yourself.

Summary, I cant find one either. It looks like the website shown below have no problem coming up with the answer. Even shows its work.

Along with 10+ other websites, and excel, etc.

No, not really.

[link to imageshack.us]
[link to img255.imageshack.us]



If someone can show me 1 math website that comes up with 1 I will agree. Even though I can show 10+ websites with 9.

I just need 1. One website.

Anyone? Cant find one... can you?

Surely there must be one website that can do it "correctly" I will wait here for you to post it.

Last Edited by Forgotten on 01/18/2013 04:35 PM

Evidence of what? If 1,000,000 people said it was 9, and 1 person said it was 1, just because 1M people outnumber the 1 makes it right? It is math, not an election.
"Ask the audience" has cost contestants thousands of dollars, even when it was a majority.

Here is proof. Outside of what people are sayng here. Or what some video shows.

[link to imageshack.us]
[link to img255.imageshack.us]



If someone can show me 1 math website that comes up with 1 I will agree. Even though I can show 10+ websites with 9.

I just need 1. One website.

Still waiting for 1 website that comes up with 1.

Those websites are wrong, OR the (6/2) was in parentheses. Any fraction using the '/', used as a coefficient, MUST be in parentheses, or else, the entire bottom becomes the denominator. I proved this with the identity law, and that isn't good enough, here is an online algebra lesson:

[link to cstl.syr.edu]

Why do you people keep bothering with this troll?

[link to imageshack.us]
[link to img255.imageshack.us]



If someone can show me 1 math website that comes up with 1 I will agree. Even though I can show 10+ websites with 9.

I just need 1. One website.



Out of MILLIONS OF WEBSITES 1 must be able to work the problem and come up with 1.

At least 1 website is doing it the "correct way". Some website must have 1 as an answer. Right?

Sure did: [link to i49.tinypic.com]

Sure did change the equation so it could get 9, too. Well, now we know how the equation should look to get 9, and this one 6 ÷ 2(2+1) =

I would like to see some that do not change the input. Everyone I have seen changes the equation first, and then they show it to be 9. No one is arguing that
(6/2)(2+1) != 9, because it is.

Look at what was typed in the search field... exactly like the original equation.


[link to imageshack.us]
[link to img255.imageshack.us]



If someone can show me 1 math website that comes up with 1 I will agree. Even though I can show 10+ websites with 9.

I just need 1. One website.


Still waiting....

Last Edited by Forgotten on 01/18/2013 04:46 PM