## Math: 6÷2(1+2) = ? | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31557420 United States 01/21/2013 10:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31557420 United States 01/21/2013 10:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

DUCM900User ID: 32755121 Italy 01/21/2013 10:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It really shouldn't matter if you do the problem correctly. But yes, here multiplication before division will net you the right answer.Anonymous Coward 31557420 yes BUT just because its n (n) and NOT n*(n). Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 01/21/2013 10:55 PM To live is to believe in the power of dreams. To dream is to believe in the power of love. To love is to believe in yourself. Luca 21:28 "Ma quando queste cose cominceranno ad accadere, guardate in alto e alzate i vostri sguardi, perché la vostra liberazione è vicina". |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31557420 United States 01/21/2013 10:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It really shouldn't matter if you do the problem correctly. But yes, here multiplication before division will net you the right answer.Anonymous Coward 31557420 yes BUT just because its n (n) and NOT n*(n). DUCM900 Yea, Caper26 said the same thing but I fail to see how it makes a difference. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31557420 United States 01/21/2013 10:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It really shouldn't matter if you do the problem correctly. But yes, here multiplication before division will net you the right answer.Anonymous Coward 31557420 yes BUT just because its n (n) and NOT n*(n). DUCM900 Yea, Caper26 said the same thing but I fail to see how it makes a difference. Anonymous Coward 31557420 6÷2(1+2)=1 6÷2*(1+2)=1 |

DUCM900User ID: 32755121 Italy 01/21/2013 10:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | n(n) simply means that the stuff is part of it and wholeyou need to solve it first.. Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 01/21/2013 10:58 PM To live is to believe in the power of dreams. To dream is to believe in the power of love. To love is to believe in yourself. Luca 21:28 "Ma quando queste cose cominceranno ad accadere, guardate in alto e alzate i vostri sguardi, perché la vostra liberazione è vicina". |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31557420 United States 01/21/2013 10:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ...It really shouldn't matter if you do the problem correctly. But yes, here multiplication before division will net you the right answer.Anonymous Coward 31557420 yes BUT just because its n (n) and NOT n*(n). DUCM900 Yea, Caper26 said the same thing but I fail to see how it makes a difference. Anonymous Coward 31557420 6÷2(1+2)=1 6÷2*(1+2)=1 Anonymous Coward 31557420 Throwing a multiplication symbol in there doesn't change the obelus into a solidus... |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31557420 United States 01/21/2013 10:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

DUCM900User ID: 32755121 Italy 01/21/2013 10:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32670912 United States 01/21/2013 11:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Mostly NormalUser ID: 31185374 United States 01/21/2013 11:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 944253 United States 01/21/2013 11:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 944253 United States 01/21/2013 11:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I am your college professor that you requested, with a doctorate in Mathematics. I will break this down as simply as possible and end this debate as approx. 10 students have already asked me this today. The problem as it is written is 6÷2(1+2) , the ÷ cannot be substituted with a fraction bar because they have different ranks on the order of operations. It is an illegal math move to do this. The bar ranks with parentheses, ÷ is interchangeable with *. therefore the problem must be solved as 6÷2(1+2) NOT 6 (over) 2(1+2) we do the parentheses first, so 6÷2(3), the parentheses are now no longer relevant, because the number inside is in it's simplest form. Every single number has implied parentheses around it. 6÷2(3) (6) ÷(2)(3) 6÷2*3, or even converting the division to multiplication by a reciprocal (a legal math move) (6)(1 (over) 2)(3) are all correct ways to write this problem and mean exactly the same thing. Using pemdas, where md and as are interchangeable, we work from left to right, so (3)(3) or 3*3= 9 Just because something is implied rather than written does not give it any special rank in the order of operations. The problem in it's simplest form, with nothing implied would look like this: (1+1+1+1+1+1 (over) 1) ÷ (1+1 (over) 1) * ((1(over) 1) + (1+1 (over) 1)) From here, nothing is implied, This again, works out to 9. If the symbol '/' was used this whole debate would be ambiguous since that symbol can mean "to divide by" or it could mean a fraction bar. HOWEVER, because the ÷ symbol is used, it can not be changed to mean a fraction bar because that would change the order of operations and thus the whole problem, you can't change a symbol to mean something because you want to, in doing so you are changing the problem. Once and for all, the answer is 9. Hopefully some of my students see this so I can stop answering this question. End of debate... hopefully. |

CitizenperthFUKUSHIMA, GLPTARD 24/7/365 User ID: 32253509 Australia 01/22/2013 01:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I am your college professor that you requested, with a doctorate in Mathematics. I will break this down as simply as possible and end this debate as approx. 10 students have already asked me this today. Quoting: The problem as it is written is 6÷2(1+2) , the ÷ cannot be substituted with a fraction bar because they have different ranks on the order of operations. It is an illegal math move to do this. The bar ranks with parentheses, ÷ is interchangeable with *. therefore the problem must be solved as 6÷2(1+2) NOT 6 (over) 2(1+2) we do the parentheses first, so 6÷2(3), the parentheses are now no longer relevant, because the number inside is in it's simplest form. Every single number has implied parentheses around it. 6÷2(3) (6) ÷(2)(3) 6÷2*3, or even converting the division to multiplication by a reciprocal (a legal math move) (6)(1 (over) 2)(3) are all correct ways to write this problem and mean exactly the same thing. Using pemdas, where md and as are interchangeable, we work from left to right, so (3)(3) or 3*3= 9 Just because something is implied rather than written does not give it any special rank in the order of operations. The problem in it's simplest form, with nothing implied would look like this: (1+1+1+1+1+1 (over) 1) ÷ (1+1 (over) 1) * ((1(over) 1) + (1+1 (over) 1)) From here, nothing is implied, This again, works out to 9. If the symbol '/' was used this whole debate would be ambiguous since that symbol can mean "to divide by" or it could mean a fraction bar. HOWEVER, because the ÷ symbol is used, it can not be changed to mean a fraction bar because that would change the order of operations and thus the whole problem, you can't change a symbol to mean something because you want to, in doing so you are changing the problem. Once and for all, the answer is 9. Hopefully some of my students see this so I can stop answering this question. End of debate... hopefully. Anonymous Coward 944253 simply.. there is no divided-by key on the keyboard so it is substituted for the divide symbol... not a replacement mathematically... YAY 9! It's life as we know it, but only just. My Fukushima Site: [link to citizenperth.wordpress.com] sic ut vos es vos should exsisto , denego alius vicis facio vos change , exsisto youself , proprie GLP's best Fuku thread: Thread: *** Fukushima *** and other nuclear-----updates and links twitter: @citizenperth “If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on it, I would use the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I knew the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.” - Albert Einstein |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31557420 United States 01/22/2013 02:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I am your college professor that you requested, with a doctorate in Mathematics. I will break this down as simply as possible and end this debate as approx. 10 students have already asked me this today. Quoting: The problem as it is written is 6÷2(1+2) , the ÷ cannot be substituted with a fraction bar because they have different ranks on the order of operations. It is an illegal math move to do this. The bar ranks with parentheses, ÷ is interchangeable with *. therefore the problem must be solved as 6÷2(1+2) NOT 6 (over) 2(1+2) we do the parentheses first, so 6÷2(3), the parentheses are now no longer relevant, because the number inside is in it's simplest form. Every single number has implied parentheses around it. 6÷2(3) (6) ÷(2)(3) 6÷2*3, or even converting the division to multiplication by a reciprocal (a legal math move) (6)(1 (over) 2)(3) are all correct ways to write this problem and mean exactly the same thing. Using pemdas, where md and as are interchangeable, we work from left to right, so (3)(3) or 3*3= 9 Just because something is implied rather than written does not give it any special rank in the order of operations. The problem in it's simplest form, with nothing implied would look like this: (1+1+1+1+1+1 (over) 1) ÷ (1+1 (over) 1) * ((1(over) 1) + (1+1 (over) 1)) From here, nothing is implied, This again, works out to 9. If the symbol '/' was used this whole debate would be ambiguous since that symbol can mean "to divide by" or it could mean a fraction bar. HOWEVER, because the ÷ symbol is used, it can not be changed to mean a fraction bar because that would change the order of operations and thus the whole problem, you can't change a symbol to mean something because you want to, in doing so you are changing the problem. Once and for all, the answer is 9. Hopefully some of my students see this so I can stop answering this question. End of debate... hopefully. Anonymous Coward 944253 You posted this crap a long time ago and you made me even more adamant about my beliefs. What is your name? Where do you teach? Clearly, you are full of it. 1) you don't know that symbol is called an obelus. 2) that does NOT mean "divide by next number". It is a grouping symbol. The answer is 1. Even if the slash was used, this debate would still NOT be ambiguous. Only if a solidus was used, would the answer equal 9. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31557420 United States 01/22/2013 02:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The problem as it is written is 6÷2(1+2) , the ÷ cannot be substituted with a fraction bar because they have different ranks on the order of operations. It is an illegal math move to do this. The bar ranks with parentheses, ÷ is interchangeable with *. therefore the problem must be solved as 6÷2(1+2) NOT 6 (over) 2(1+2) we do the parentheses first, so 6÷2(3), the parentheses are now no longer relevant, because the number inside is in it's simplest form. Every single number has implied parentheses around it. 6÷2(3) (6) ÷(2)(3) 6÷2*3, or even converting the division to multiplication by a reciprocal (a legal math move) (6)(1 (over) 2)(3) are all correct ways to write this problem and mean exactly the same thing. Using pemdas, where md and as are interchangeable, we work from left to right, so (3)(3) or 3*3= 9 Just because something is implied rather than written does not give it any special rank in the order of operations. The problem in it's simplest form, with nothing implied would look like this: (1+1+1+1+1+1 (over) 1) ÷ (1+1 (over) 1) * ((1(over) 1) + (1+1 (over) 1)) From here, nothing is implied, This again, works out to 9. If the symbol '/' was used this whole debate would be ambiguous since that symbol can mean "to divide by" or it could mean a fraction bar. HOWEVER, because the ÷ symbol is used, it can not be changed to mean a fraction bar because that would change the order of operations and thus the whole problem, you can't change a symbol to mean something because you want to, in doing so you are changing the problem. Once and for all, the answer is 9. Hopefully some of my students see this so I can stop answering this question. End of debate... hopefully. Anonymous Coward 944253 You posted this crap a long time ago and you made me even more adamant about my beliefs. What is your name? Where do you teach? Clearly, you are full of it. 1) you don't know that symbol is called an obelus. 2) that does NOT mean "divide by next number". It is a grouping symbol. The answer is 1. Even if the slash was used, this debate would still NOT be ambiguous. Only if a solidus was used, would the answer equal 9. Anonymous Coward 31557420 "You posted this crap a long time ago and you made me even more adamant about my beliefs." Which were completely wrong at the time. Luckily Caper26 put up with me and helped me learn some things about mathematics. The answer is 1. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 1510789 Finland 01/22/2013 03:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 13766129 United States 01/22/2013 03:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 13766129 United States 01/22/2013 04:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 13766129 United States 01/22/2013 04:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32447952 United Kingdom 01/22/2013 04:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 13766129 United States 01/22/2013 04:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | When it's 6 Quoting: Divided By 2(1+2).SyriusThis notation more clearly represents such a problem... 6÷(2(1+2)) [link to www.wolframalpha.com] Anonymous Coward 1194370Hilarious. Parenthesis inside of parenthesis? If you want to be technical, it would like something like this: 6÷(2[1+2]) SyriusSure. That works too. No ambiguity. Have fun. Anonymous Coward 1194370 You dumb yankees are adding brackets to justify incorrect answers and order of operations. Brackets first, then left to right any division or multiplication. 9 is correct, 1 is for dummies or republicans, but that is also equivalent. If you use a dictionary you may understand what I said, but all others will instantly. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 13766129 United States 01/22/2013 04:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | When it's 6 Quoting: Divided By 2(1+2).SyriusThis notation more clearly represents such a problem... 6÷(2(1+2)) [link to www.wolframalpha.com] Anonymous Coward 1194370Hilarious. Parenthesis inside of parenthesis? If you want to be technical, it would look like this: 6÷(2[1+2]) SyriusYou cannot mess with the order of operations! There is only one outcome: 1. If you have compelling proof that it is something else without breaking the rules of order of operation just show it. Anonymous Coward 1362610 Don't embarrass your country, brackets first, then exponents,division,mulitiplication,addition,subtraction, or bedmas.You added brackets mistakenly, if they were there in the original equation, they would apply, but they weren't, so don't change the equation to justify your chosen answer. |

MustangTerryUser ID: 13766129 United States 01/22/2013 04:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The problem as it is written is 6÷2(1+2) , the ÷ cannot be substituted with a fraction bar because they have different ranks on the order of operations. It is an illegal math move to do this. The bar ranks with parentheses, ÷ is interchangeable with *. therefore the problem must be solved as 6÷2(1+2) NOT 6 (over) 2(1+2) we do the parentheses first, so 6÷2(3), the parentheses are now no longer relevant, because the number inside is in it's simplest form. Every single number has implied parentheses around it. 6÷2(3) (6) ÷(2)(3) 6÷2*3, or even converting the division to multiplication by a reciprocal (a legal math move) (6)(1 (over) 2)(3) are all correct ways to write this problem and mean exactly the same thing. Using pemdas, where md and as are interchangeable, we work from left to right, so (3)(3) or 3*3= 9 Just because something is implied rather than written does not give it any special rank in the order of operations. The problem in it's simplest form, with nothing implied would look like this: (1+1+1+1+1+1 (over) 1) ÷ (1+1 (over) 1) * ((1(over) 1) + (1+1 (over) 1)) From here, nothing is implied, This again, works out to 9. If the symbol '/' was used this whole debate would be ambiguous since that symbol can mean "to divide by" or it could mean a fraction bar. HOWEVER, because the ÷ symbol is used, it can not be changed to mean a fraction bar because that would change the order of operations and thus the whole problem, you can't change a symbol to mean something because you want to, in doing so you are changing the problem. Once and for all, the answer is 9. Hopefully some of my students see this so I can stop answering this question. End of debate... hopefully. Anonymous Coward 944253 Thanks for explaining to the morans the correct procedure, I was shocked by so many wrong answers.Very many from the USA, but not all....Most Canadians are correct, of course, eh? |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 13652486 United States 01/22/2013 04:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

MustangTerryUser ID: 13766129 United States 01/22/2013 05:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ...Read all my previous statements. I did not use /, did I? However, like I stated 3 times before this the brackets are juxtaposed next to the 2 to signify it being part of the denominator. Like your link stated, "to clarify." Syrius1. It does not matter what symbol you choose to represent division, the precedence rules always stay the same. The '/' is just a more common choice, perhaps because its more easily typed on a computer. 2. Are you an idiot? Parentheses raise the precedence order for operations found INSIDE the parentheses, not OUTSIDE them! If you truly cannot read and understand the wikipedia quote I gave you properly, then there's just no point discussing with you further. You don't have the necessary brainpower. If you can't bring your Ego to listen to your intellectual superiors here on GLP, bring this question to any professional involved with math, or feed it into calculating programs such as Matlab, Excel, or Mathematica. Perhaps it will sink in then. Anonymous Coward 300884Intellectual superiors don't resort to name calling. That describes people who have ran out of ideas to argue and need justification in its lowest form. You can twist my words; but, at the end of the day the equation I presented and the material that was provided proves beyond a doubt that it can be interpreted in the way I postulated. Run back to your technology and assume the position, sir. Your ego is done. SyriusIntellectual superiors do resort to name calling when fools don't have the good sense of shutting up about things beyond their understanding. Smart people are just human too you know... At the end of the day, you've been kindly corrected over and over in this thread by a lot of knowledgeable people, but you refuse to listen to any of them, because you believe you know best. That's a case of Ego gone horribly wrong. But I will leave this thread now and leave you to your delusions. Anonymous Coward 300884 Typical arrogant yankee know-it-all that knows little. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32795095 Australia 01/22/2013 06:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

CitizenperthFUKUSHIMA, GLPTARD 24/7/365 User ID: 32253509 Australia 01/22/2013 06:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............. 9 It's life as we know it, but only just. My Fukushima Site: [link to citizenperth.wordpress.com] sic ut vos es vos should exsisto , denego alius vicis facio vos change , exsisto youself , proprie GLP's best Fuku thread: Thread: *** Fukushima *** and other nuclear-----updates and links twitter: @citizenperth “If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on it, I would use the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I knew the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.” - Albert Einstein |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 27845368 United States 01/22/2013 07:08 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 27845368 United States 01/22/2013 07:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

- Parental rights in bull's-eye of Senate fight Dire warnings issued as supporters try to advance 'disabilities' treaty
- The UK is about to unleash a 'fart machine' on France
- Residents in a Florida town are shocked to learn some of their local cops were initiated into the Ku Klux Klan.
- Obama Refuses to Add Religious Exemption to Homosexual Employment Mandate
- IMF, World Bank, Giant Consultants Admit The Storm Is Coming
- US Military Once Planned on Building Surveillance System on the Moon
- How does each state feel about the military?
- You Can Now Send Messages Even When You Don't Have Cell Service
- The Manipulation of the Human Psyche
- A Tweetbot Caught the Russian Gov't Editing Flight MH17 Wikipedia Info
- Military To Scan Soldier’s Brains For Signs Of Disloyalty?
- Venezuela's Breathtaking Air Tax
- Almost everyone involved in developing Tor was (or is) funded by the US government
- Mount Rainier will erupt again – magma rising in enigmatic volcano
- US Sentencing Commission Votes Unanimously to Reduce Drug Sentences Retroactively
- Gun Control: Bill Would Outlaw Firearm Brands On Kid's Clothing And Colorful Guns
- The sun has gone quiet…solar cycle 24
- New study shows how existing cropland could feed billions more
- New Obama rule could force cities to house illegals
- Congressman Thomas Massie Calls for Release of Secret 9/11 Documents Upon Reading Them
- Globalist Mouthpiece Calls For The Entire Planet To Adopt Digital ‘National Identification System’
- U.S. Military Seeks To Brain Scan Troops For "Signs of Potential Betrayal"
- Busted! Kiev's Video Implicating Russia Posted to Youtube Before Plane Was Shot Down
- Putting babies on psychiatric drugs
- When we die, what happens to our Facebook pages?