## Math: 6÷2(1+2) = ? | |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It is no proper mathematics to write it that way. This would be the right way: 6 ÷ (2(2+1)) = 1 Anonymous Coward 32715180 No, for laymen, you can write it that way. They are redundant parentheses, for the reason I just stated above. "I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it." |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32715180 01/21/2013 07:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32762094 Finland 01/21/2013 07:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Technically no, but it gives young students a sense of order. Adding and multiplying is associative, so it doesn't matter what order you them in. Subtracting and division are the same as adding and multiplying. It is knowing things like this, as well as other details of maths, that allow you to see that this equation is solved as 1. [link to math.berkeley.edu] Read that. It is important to note that this stipulation about \from left to right"is entirely extraneous, because the associative laws of addition and multiplication ensure that it makes no dierence whatsoever in what order the additions or multiplications are carried out. Quoting: Brekeley.educaper_26 You should read your own links, specifically this part: it makes no dierence whatsoever in what order the additions or multiplications are carried out. Quoting: your own link6/2(1+2) = 6 x 0.5 x 3 = 9 only a fool argues anything other than 9. |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Wrong. It IS proper. Here is an online algebra question: {4 [2xz^4 (2c³v ÷ 2cv²)³ ÷ 2]} ÷ c^6x • v³ = 4z^4 = ?? I bet you can't solve it correctly EDITED to fix exponents Last Edited by caper_26 on 01/21/2013 07:33 PM "I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it." |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You should read your own links, specifically this part: Quoting: it makes no dierence whatsoever in what order the additions or multiplications are carried out. Quoting: your own link6/2(1+2) = 6 x 0.5 x 3 = 9 only a fool argues anything other than 9. Anonymous Coward 32762094 That is really funny. Did you not see that I quoted that exact passage? Next time you want to re-write it, do it properly: 6 * 2^-1 * (2+1)^-1 Why? 6 ÷ 2n = 6 * (2n)^-1 = 6 * 2^-1 * n^-1; where n = 2+1 "I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it." |

Smith JefferysUser ID: 15628045 United Kingdom 01/21/2013 07:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32715180 01/21/2013 07:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32762094 Finland 01/21/2013 07:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You should read your own links, specifically this part: Quoting: it makes no dierence whatsoever in what order the additions or multiplications are carried out. Quoting: your own link6/2(1+2) = 6 x 0.5 x 3 = 9 only a fool argues anything other than 9. Anonymous Coward 32762094 That is really funny. Did you not see that I quoted that exact passage? Next time you want to re-write it, do it properly: 6 * 2^-1 * (2+1)^-1 Why? 6 ÷ 2n = 6 * (2n)^-1 = 6 * 2^-1 * n^-1; where n = 2+1 caper_26 LMAO. It's a basic math quiz. What's wrong with you? 9 is still the answer. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32614604 Australia 01/21/2013 07:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is PROOF that infix notation SUCKS!!! Use REVERSE POLISH NOTATION, and then YOU DON'T NEED PARENTHESES!!!! "Reverse Polish notation (RPN) is a mathematical notation in which every operator follows all of its operands, in contrast to Polish notation, which puts the operator in the prefix position. It is also known as postfix notation and is parenthesis-free as long as operator arities are fixed."[link to en.wikipedia.org] so... who wants to convert the expression to RPN? |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32715180 01/21/2013 07:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32715180 01/21/2013 07:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It is no proper mathematics to write it that way. This would be the right way: 6 ÷ (2(2+1)) = 1 Anonymous Coward 32715180 No, for laymen, you can write it that way. They are redundant parentheses, for the reason I just stated above. caper_26 Source?Anonymous Coward 32715180 Still waiting. |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | GLP converted some exponents to HTML code. Try this: Quoting: {4 [2xz^4 (2c³v ÷ 2cv²)³ ÷ 2]} ÷ c^6x • v³ = 4z^4 = ?? caper_26 There is only multiplication and exponents in that equation. No addition. Totally different case study. Anonymous Coward 32715180 Doesnt matter. the addition gets done first anyway. I bet you STILL can't answer it. It should be easier if there is no addition then since there is no ambiguity? |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32715180 01/21/2013 07:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32614604 Australia 01/21/2013 07:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32762094 Finland 01/21/2013 07:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32715180 01/21/2013 07:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And here is an algebra lesson that you so desperately need. [link to cstl.syr.edu] |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32715180 01/21/2013 07:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32762094 Finland 01/21/2013 07:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Where is your source, that you don't need parantheses. Still waiting? Anonymous Coward 32715180 I gave you the source: Identity Law: Solve a ÷ 1a ? or a / 1a = ? caper_26 So you're argung that 2(1+2) is equal to (2x(1+2)) because of the identity law? Anonymous Coward 32715180 Identity Law proves a ÷ 1a = 1. This means a ÷ (1a) = 1, and not a squared a ÷ 2a = 1/2 6 ÷ 2a = 3/a. Let a = (2+1) |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32715180 01/21/2013 07:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ...Where is your source, that you don't need parantheses. Still waiting? Anonymous Coward 32715180 I gave you the source: Identity Law: Solve a ÷ 1a ? or a / 1a = ? caper_26 So you're argung that 2(1+2) is equal to (2x(1+2)) because of the identity law? Anonymous Coward 32715180 Identity Law proves a ÷ 1a = 1. This means a ÷ (1a) = 1, and not a squared a ÷ 2a = 1/2 6 ÷ 2a = 3/a. Let a = (2+1) caper_26 The logic is not hard to understand, but I have never seen it written that way. It is not proper written math imo. |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 07:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I see the idiots are out tonight. "it is 9, because it is". You are a retarded troll... troll on. Here is what you DON'T know: (6/2) must be in parentheses to multiply something also in ( ). 6 ÷ 2n = 3/n (6/2) must be in ( ) to distribute. In this equation, is is not, so we distribute the 2. Here is your lesson, once again. Go learn, or remain ignorant: [link to cstl.syr.edu] |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/21/2013 08:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The logic is not hard to understand, but I have never seen it written that way. It is not proper written math imo. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32715180 Your opinion doesn't matter to math LAWS: [link to www.onemathematicalcat.org] [link to www.math.com] |

- Double amputee moves prosthetic arms by intuitive thought
- Feminism Backlash: Media Programming, Endocrine Disruptors, Will Men Find Their Hearts Again?
- The Baltic Dry Index Has Never Crashed This Fast Post-Thanksgiving
- Why There's No Ebola Vaccine
- What is a New World Order?
- How Nonprofit Hospitals Are Seizing Patients’ Wages
- Cop: We Need Military Equipment Because of “Constitutionalists”
- Forget North Korea: Watch Out for Chinese Censorship of Hollywood
- Vermont Governor Abandons Single-Payer Healthcare
- How Germany Was Partitioned. Lessons for Ukraine
- EPA Declines to Classify Coal Ash as Hazardous Waste
- Protesters shut down part of Mall of America in Minnesota
- World War III - The Calm Before the Storm
- EFF in Court to Argue NSA Data Collection from Internet Backbone Is Unconstitutional
- Unacceptable Levels: The Chemicals In Our Bodies; How They Got There and What To Do About It
- Satanic Temple Invokes Supreme Court Ruling to Force Display at Florida Capitol Building
- US seeks to overthrow Venezuela government: official
- Privacy will not exist in 10 years
- Correction: Tonight isn't the longest night in Earth's history
- Creep of the Week: Convicted Wall Street trader sues customer who turned him in!
- Obama condemns Sony's decision to drop film, says US must retaliate and pass cyber bill
- Bush v. Clinton In 2016? New World Order Dream Matchup Being Touted As ‘Inevitable’
- Court Rules You CAN Be ‘Too Smart’ to Be a Cop
- Mainstream Media Ignores Massive Open Carry Protest
- Police Pre-Crime Algorithm Uses Social Media Posts Against You in Real-Time