## Math: 6÷2(1+2) = ? | |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 09:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Whats incorrect? teach me. Quoting: 6/2(1+2) = x --or-->> 6/((2)¹+(2)²) = x --or-->> 6/((2)¹+(2)¹+(2)¹) = x- DUCM900 [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 Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

DUCM900User ID: 32508414 Italy 01/18/2013 09:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Whats incorrect? teach me. Quoting: 6/2(1+2) = x --or-->> 6/((2)¹+(2)²) = x --or-->> 6/((2)¹+(2)¹+(2)¹) = x- DUCM900 [link to imageshack.us] [link to img255.imageshack.us] Forgotten |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 09:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [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? Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

BentUser ID: 27078390 United States 01/18/2013 09:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Patrick BatemanUser ID: 32018985 United States 01/18/2013 09:39 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 09:39 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Calculators don't work with this equation, because of the logic involved. Quoting: 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. Bent 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? Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 09:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Calculators don't work with this equation, because of the logic involved. Quoting: 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. Bent Finally Patrick Bateman 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? Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

Patrick BatemanUser ID: 32018985 United States 01/18/2013 09:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Calculators don't work with this equation, because of the logic involved. Quoting: 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. Bent Finally Patrick Bateman 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? Forgotten 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. |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 09:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Bent Finally Patrick Bateman 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? Forgotten 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 Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

Patrick BatemanUser ID: 32018985 United States 01/18/2013 09:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Bent Finally Patrick Bateman 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? Forgotten I just copy and pasted the equation into google search... Guess what answer it gave me... 9! [link to www.google.com (secure)] Forgotten 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 |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 09:46 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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] Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

BentUser ID: 27078390 United States 01/18/2013 09:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 09:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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.) Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

Patrick BatemanUser ID: 32018985 United States 01/18/2013 09:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 09:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Quoting: Patrick Bateman 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 Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

Patrick BatemanUser ID: 32018985 United States 01/18/2013 09:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Quoting: Patrick Bateman 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? Forgotten 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. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/18/2013 04:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to imageshack.us] [link to img255.imageshack.us] Someone show me a math website that comes up with 1. Anyone!!!!! Please? Forgotten 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. |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 04:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to imageshack.us] [link to img255.imageshack.us] Someone show me a math website that comes up with 1. Anyone!!!!! Please? Forgotten 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. Anonymous Coward 32057798 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 Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

caper_26 User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/18/2013 04:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 04:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. caper_26 32057798 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. Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/18/2013 04:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | the 6/2 would need distributed into the (2+1) if you want to do distribution. Quoting: As seen on every math website I have found. Forgotten 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] |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32505888 Germany 01/18/2013 04:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 04:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | the 6/2 would need distributed into the (2+1) if you want to do distribution. Quoting: As seen on every math website I have found. Forgotten 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] Anonymous Coward 32057798 [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? Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 04:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/18/2013 04:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I just copy and pasted the equation into google search... Quoting: Guess what answer it gave me... 9! Forgotten 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) = |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/18/2013 04:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Quoting: I just need 1. One website. Still waiting for 1 website that comes up with 1. Forgotten 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. |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 04:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I just copy and pasted the equation into google search... Quoting: Guess what answer it gave me... 9! Forgotten 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) = Anonymous Coward 32057798 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 Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/18/2013 04:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

ForgottenUser ID: 1448291 United States 01/18/2013 04:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Ask wolfram what 6/2n = Quoting: Then when you get that answer, substitute 2+1 in for, and complete it yourself. Anonymous Coward 32057798 I told you what to do. It is right above this sentence. Anonymous Coward 32057798 You are changing the equation by doing that. Type in the equation exactly as the ORIGINAL... weak attempt man. Real weak. The image below shows me typing in the EXACT equation. Still waiting... [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. Last Edited by Forgotten on 01/18/2013 04:48 PM Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/18/2013 04:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Look at what was typed in the search field... exactly like the original equation. Quoting: Forgotten Look at what the search field was CHANGED to in the very next step. Those programs know how to handle variables via juxtaposition but the minute you add parentheses, it parses the coefficient away from them. Software programs treat 2n and 2(n) differently. There is your answer. You make keep asking, but I am sure most of them are programmed similarly, and that will not change. Here is what WOlfram Alpha's Terms say: Wolfram|Alpha ... is Quoting: not, however, a certified or definitive source of information that can be relied on for legal, financial, medical, life-safety, or any other critical purposes.Common sense, and these Terms of Use, require that you independently verify the accuracy, completeness, and relevance of any information you get from Wolfram|Alpha before relying on it for any purpose Wolfram|AlphaDoes that make any sense? |

- THE ILLUMINATI's MOST HATED
- Turkish imam suspended after ‘pieces of cucumber’ found in his rectum
- Why Prison Phone Rates Keep Going Up Even Though The FCC Regulated Them
- CFR Member Calls on Elites to “Rise Up Against Ignorant Masses”
- US Marines denounce ‘crazy political correctness’ after order to remove the word ‘man’ from job titles
- “The Black Budget.” This Is What The ‘Secret Government’ Doesn’t Want You To Know
- Police are giving people and homes 'Social Disorder' ratings
- Over 5,300 U.S. Water Systems are in Violation of the Law — Poisoning Millions
- New Resort Built For Filthy Rich To Survive The “Apocalypse”
- U.N. Trucks Mystery Deepens: ‘They’re not ours!’
- Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. Prays to Allah at General Assembly
- Taking Kids to Church Violates Their Human Rights, Says UN
- This False Theology Feeds Into the Antichrist’s Schemes for a One World Religion
- Kentucky congressman wants to 'Amexit' from U.N.
- People are calling the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting event the sloppiest false flag hoax ever
- Russian Troops Protect Secret Biblical Dig In Syria
- NASA Finally Find Evidence Of Life On Mars
- BERMUDA TRIANGLE: Ship Reappears 90 Years After Going Missing
- Researchers Just Found A Huge Underground Helium Pool In Africa
- Strike On Power Grid Could Cripple America For A Decade
- Pot Smoking Church Makes Debut In Michigan
- Google Plans to Control Public Transit…
- Secret Govt Warehouses Set For Health Catastrophes…
- EU Wants to Redefine Robots as “Electronic Persons”
- Senate Agrees on “DARK Act” GMO Labeling Bill