## Math: 6÷2(1+2) = ? | |

ForgottenUser ID: 29097718 United States 01/22/2013 09:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Dont bother responding, because I wont respond. Just wanted to show this "joke of an answer" you gave in other thread. Which is obviously so wrong it isnt even funny. Redunancy indeed! That is THE most retarded answer I have ever seen. If you believe that, then no bloody wonder you getting 9 as a response. Quoting: "Redundancy Law" A coefficient of 1 does NOT need to be written. It is ALWAYS implied. a = 1a . Also the Identity Law. You CAN write though, but because of the math LAW stated, it cannot change the outcome of the answer. Please tell me you see what is wrong with this! I thank you for posting, because I can actually use that as yet ANOTHER way to prove 1 is the answer, as a matter of fact !! 3÷1(1+2)=9 What kind of special math is this?? '1' as a coefficient can be omitted.that means, according to you: 3÷1(1+2)= 3÷(1+2) 9 = 1 In reality though, 3÷1(1+2)= 3÷(1+2) 1 = 1 Thank you for showing everyone this "proof" and good night. Nothing more to be said here after that one. caper_26 I sincerely hope this is the last time you reply. You are right, the 1 can be omitted. But that just means you remove the ÷, (the item between the 1 and 3), but that still leaves multiplication there. If you drop the "useless" 1, then you drop the item in between. Not the one after. at a loss for words. Last Edited by Forgotten on 01/22/2013 09:03 PM Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

DUCM900User ID: 32829152 Italy 01/22/2013 09:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nice one. I already proved wolfram doesn't know how to substitute values for variables. If I gave you 6÷2n = 3/n, then told you n=2+1; it is mathematically invalid to say 9 = 1 This is what wolfram does. Wolfram is proven useless to solve this equation correctly. [link to i46.tinypic.com] . caper_26 Also take a look at that: 6÷2(1+2)=9 >>>> [link to s20.postimage.org] then this one: 3÷1(1+2)=9 >>>> [link to s20.postimage.org] :jckwsy: lmao OP have just banned me ans caper from his own thread >>> [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 12260220 United States 01/22/2013 09:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | For all who dont understand math. 6/2(1+2) - Paranthesis first 6/2(3) - You dont get to do whatever you like to do first here, in an equation you work left to right. Like when you read, you dont start at the end of the sentence and work backwards. That would be STUPID 3(3) - Then you multiply The Answer is 9. Such a simple equation that seems to bother even the most critical mind. Ashamed I live in this country sometimes. |

ForgottenUser ID: 29097718 United States 01/22/2013 09:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Also take a look at that: Quoting: 6÷2(1+2)=9 >>>> [link to s20.postimage.org] then this one: 3÷1(1+2)=9 >>>> [link to s20.postimage.org] youI am responding because I think you are starting to see Caper for what he is. But maybe not. Wolf is saying those things because Caper is wrong. Read this below man. His own words. I think you can see the error in what he said/typed. Which clearly shows.. 3÷1(1+2)=9 Exact same type of problem as original. See below. That is THE most retarded answer I have ever seen. If you believe that, then no bloody wonder you getting 9 as a response. Quoting: "Redundancy Law" A coefficient of 1 does NOT need to be written. It is ALWAYS implied. a = 1a . Also the Identity Law. You CAN write though, but because of the math LAW stated, it cannot change the outcome of the answer. Please tell me you see what is wrong with this! I thank you for posting, because I can actually use that as yet ANOTHER way to prove 1 is the answer, as a matter of fact !! 3÷1(1+2)=9 What kind of special math is this?? '1' as a coefficient can be omitted.that means, according to you: 3÷1(1+2)= 3÷(1+2) 9 = 1 In reality though, 3÷1(1+2)= 3÷(1+2) 1 = 1 Thank you for showing everyone this "proof" and good night. Nothing more to be said here after that one. caper_26 I sincerely hope this is the last time you reply. You are right, the 1 can be omitted. But that just means you remove the ÷, (the item between the 1 and 3), but that still leaves multiplication there. If you drop the "useless" 1, then you drop the item in between. Not the one after. at a loss for words. You can see, by removing the redudant 1... it leaves you with one equation... 3(1+2). If you really are not starting to see the error, then sorry for posting again. Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

DUCM900User ID: 32829152 Italy 01/22/2013 09:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NOW, after that, am I a moran just because I'm still with the 1? Quoting: How do you 9 supporters can still breath? lmao. DUCM900[link to www.godlikeproductions.com] . |

BentUser ID: 1441871 United States 01/22/2013 09:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NOW, after that, am I a moran just because I'm still with the 1? Quoting: How do you 9 supporters can still breath? lmao. DUCM900[link to www.godlikeproductions.com] . DUCM900 Lol an infinite loop of stupidity... |

DUCM900User ID: 32829152 Italy 01/22/2013 09:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

BentUser ID: 1441871 United States 01/22/2013 09:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

DUCM900User ID: 32829152 Italy 01/22/2013 09:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/22/2013 09:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I sincerely hope this is the last time you reply. Quoting: You are right, the 1 can be omitted. But that just means you remove the ÷, (the item between the 1 and 3),You can see, by removing the redudant 1... it leaves you with one equation...3(1+2). Forgotten I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Please go show this to your nearest math professor, then quickly dodge. by your logic (or lack thereof) a ÷ 1a is the same as writing aa ? For the reasons bolded above? Please show me the reference where not actually writing the 1 as a coefficient allows me to remove the preceding operator as well. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Keep embarrassing yourself, kid. this is getting better by the second... Last Edited by caper_26 on 01/22/2013 09:53 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." |

BentUser ID: 1441871 United States 01/22/2013 09:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I sincerely hope this is the last time you reply. Quoting: You are right, the 1 can be omitted. But that just means you remove the ÷, (the item between the 1 and 3),You can see, by removing the redudant 1... it leaves you with one equation...3(1+2). Forgotten I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Please go show this to your nearest math professor, then quickly dodge. by your logic (or lack thereof) a ÷ 1a is the same as writing aa ? For the reasons bolded above? Please show me the reference where not actually writing the 1 as a coefficient allows me to remove the preceding operator as well. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Keep embarrassing yourself, kid. this is getting better by the second... caper_26 I was like |

ForgottenUser ID: 29097718 United States 01/22/2013 09:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I sincerely hope this is the last time you reply. Quoting: You are right, the 1 can be omitted. But that just means you remove the ÷, (the item between the 1 and 3),You can see, by removing the redudant 1... it leaves you with one equation...3(1+2). Forgotten I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Please go show this to your nearest math professor, then quickly dodge. by your logic (or lack thereof) a ÷ 1a is the same as writing aa ? For the reasons bolded above? caper_26 I was like Quoting: BentYou drop the symbol between the 1 and the other number. You dont move over to somewhere else. Come on man, this is pretty straightforward. 3*1÷5 ... 1÷5 is not redudant. but 3*1 is... so you drop the * sign, not the ÷. 3÷5 is the same as above. Dropping the 1 and the symbol BETWEEN. I thought DUCM was starting to see the light, so I responded. I will vanish now. Thanks for the laughs. Edit: You are correct about one thing.... This is indeed getting better by the second. Last Edited by Forgotten on 01/22/2013 10:13 PM Forgotten: Reach me at admin@TheGoldenRuleNow.org |

BentUser ID: 1441871 United States 01/22/2013 10:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 2(1+2).......6 ______ * _____ = x * 2(1+2) ...1........2(1+2) 36 __ = x * 6 6 6 = x * 6 6 __ = x 6 1 = x Edit: forgot a step, really don't need it because you can cancel, but nonetheless, for you 9tards. Last Edited by Bent on 01/23/2013 04:50 PM |

AnubisUser ID: 25735337 Canada 01/22/2013 10:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | For all who dont understand math. Quoting: 6/2(1+2) - Paranthesis first 6/2(3) - You dont get to do whatever you like to do first here, in an equation you work left to right. Like when you read, you dont start at the end of the sentence and work backwards. That would be STUPID 3(3) - Then you multiply The Answer is 9. Such a simple equation that seems to bother even the most critical mind. Ashamed I live in this country sometimes. Anonymous Coward 12260220 thank you. the mere fact that this thread is 140 pages is ridiculous. |

BentUser ID: 1441871 United States 01/22/2013 10:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

BentUser ID: 1441871 United States 01/22/2013 11:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

AnubisUser ID: 25735337 Canada 01/22/2013 11:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

BentUser ID: 1441871 United States 01/22/2013 11:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/23/2013 04:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You drop the symbol between the 1 and the other number. You dont move over to somewhere else. Come on man, this is pretty straightforward.3*1÷5 ... 1÷5 is not redudant. but 3*1 is... so you drop the * sign, not the ÷. 3÷5 is the same as above. Dropping the 1 and the symbol BETWEEN. Forgotten The "dropping symbol between" Law. I cannot argue with you since it is not socially unacceptable to do so with someone who is "special" Last Edited by caper_26 on 01/23/2013 04:03 AM "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: 27243460 United States 01/23/2013 04:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

caper_26User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/23/2013 01:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | (6)/(2)*(1+2) Quoting: Add 2 to 1 to get 3. (6)/(2)*(3) Reduce the expression (6(3))/(2) by removing a factor of 2 from the numerator and denominator. 3(3) Multiply 3 by each term inside the parentheses. =9 Anonymous Coward 27243460 You separated the (2+1) from the denominator. "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 01/23/2013 06:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here is how to rewrite the problem properly when the obelus is used. Notice how they don't change 2x into 2 * x and then use only the 2 for the divisor?? [link to i47.tinypic.com] ref: [link to go.hrw.com] The 9ers somewhat understand the order of operations, but it is the algebra that is killing them in the end |

ZinthanielUser ID: 35630633 United States 03/05/2013 04:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You are incorrect. The answer is still 9, even with the distributive property being, needlessly, applied. If you have 4x(2y+3) you get 8xy + 12x Right? That's because when you parse these units you don't just distribute the x by it's self you also distribute the 4 along with it. 4x = 4*x multiplication is of equal value of to division so rules are applied to them equally. So like how both the x and the 4 are distributed the 2 and the 6 are distributed in the equation 6÷2(1+2). And there for you end up with 6÷2*1 + 6÷2*2 = 9. This is a needless way of solving the equation because it has no variables and therefore can be solved simply with pemdas which gives you the same answer yet again. You know there's to many buttons in the world, and they're just begging to be pushed. |

JamesVIIUser ID: 1718960 United States 03/05/2013 05:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Why is this 131 pages it's basic algebra, parentheses first to simplify the equation. Answer is 1. [link to www.math.com] Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4239460 Thank you. 1. |

JamesVIIUser ID: 1718960 United States 03/05/2013 05:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Why is this 131 pages it's basic algebra, parentheses first to simplify the equation. Answer is 1. [link to www.math.com] Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4239460 Thank you. 1. JamesVII If you're using a sci calculator, you have to separate the 6 from everything else, or it does not follow the parenthesis order.... otherwise it will think the 6 should be divided by 2 first, because there are no parameters in multiply/divide going from left to right. The operator needs to understand this. Thanks. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 1617215 United States 03/05/2013 05:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

ZinthanielUser ID: 35630633 United States 03/05/2013 05:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 9. With distributive property properly applied. 6÷2*1+6÷2*2= still equals 9. With basic pemdas application. step one "P" (1+2) = 3. step two. From left to right solve any multiplication or division equations. Again from Left to Right. so 6÷2*3 = 9 (Still) Notice how the distributive property is not needed to reach the same absolute answer of 9, but even when applied you still get 9. So 9. thank you basic arithmetic and algebra. =] Last Edited by Zinthaniel on 03/05/2013 05:22 PM You know there's to many buttons in the world, and they're just begging to be pushed. |

JamesVIIUser ID: 1718960 United States 03/05/2013 05:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 9. Quoting: With distributive property properly applied. 6÷2*1+6÷2*2= still equals 9. With basic pemdas application. step one "P" (1+2) = 3. step two. From left to right solve any multiplication or division equations. Again from Left to Right. so 6÷2*3 = 9 (Still) Notice how the distributive property is not needed to reach the same absolute answer of 9, but even when applied you still get 9. So 9. thank you basic arithmetic and algebra. =] Zinthaniel If you substitute the plus sign with a multiply, in the parenthesis, what do you get then? Parenthesis are there to determine order. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 3343897 Australia 03/05/2013 05:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

ZinthanielUser ID: 35630633 United States 03/05/2013 05:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 9. Quoting: With distributive property properly applied. 6÷2*1+6÷2*2= still equals 9. With basic pemdas application. step one "P" (1+2) = 3. step two. From left to right solve any multiplication or division equations. Again from Left to Right. so 6÷2*3 = 9 (Still) Notice how the distributive property is not needed to reach the same absolute answer of 9, but even when applied you still get 9. So 9. thank you basic arithmetic and algebra. =] Zinthaniel If you substitute the plus sign with a multiply, in the parenthesis, what do you get then? Parenthesis are there to determine order. JamesVII A different answer obviously, but I don't get your point. With the distributive property used even with pemdas used in conjunction you still get 9. 6÷2(1+2) 1: "P" 1+2=3 you can choose to leave the 3 in the parentheses if you so choose, but this is not necessary because the parentheses are not relevant at this point. But if you do then you have this. 6÷2(3) Now to distribute, if we must, but why? anyways at this point since only 3 remains in the parentheses we get this 6÷2*3. guess what it still equals 9. Last Edited by Zinthaniel on 03/05/2013 05:36 PM You know there's to many buttons in the world, and they're just begging to be pushed. |

- Here’s A List Of Obama Admin Officials Who Used Alternate E-Mails To Conduct Government Business
- Not only is #ICANN a threat to our 1st Amend it's a Threat to our National Security Contact your Senator (202) 224-3121
- THIS WILL OPEN YOUR EYES ABOUT HILLARYCLINTON & BILL A DANGER TO THE WORLD NOT JUST AMERICA
- Calls for FBI Director Comey to resign over total sham of investigation
- Coming soon: A new way for Russia's authorities to invade your privacy
- George Soros Pushing For US Online Voting System
- Was This Prominent Black Leader Murdered Because He Spoke Out Against Geoge Soros’ Black Lives Matter?
- Arizona Parents Beware: Court Says Changing Diapers Equals Sexual Molestation
- “They Tried to Warn Us”: 1981 TV Show Nailed Globalist Push to Break Down Borders for a One World Government
- The October Surprise Will be a Violent Provocation Blamed on Trump
- “Trump Will Go 26th”: Is This Eerie Radio Transmission Part of Plot to Assassinate Trump at the First Debate?
- Video: Charlotte Riots – What They’re NOT Telling You
- WikiLeaks Bombshell: Hillary’s Brain Injury Caused By ‘Near Fatal Plane Crash’
- Germany makes having sex with prostitutes without condom illegal
- Drilling at Unfathomable Alien Landscapes
- Survival: How to make a soldering iron out of a lighter
- If you’re a guy, having older brothers makes you more likely to be gay
- Obama’s “Palestinian Land” According to U.S. And U.N. Policy and the Oslo agreements, not Palestinian land at all.
- BlackLivesMatter Co-Founder DEMANDS To Be Granted COP FREE Black Communities
- US Govt Just Legalized Operation Mockingbird — FBI Can Now Impersonate the Media
- Shocking new study shows chemo kills half of cancer patients, not cancer itself
- Unilever megacorporation rushing to buy out small organic companies
- CLAIM: Historic event to occur in the next six days that will end the rise of Trump and seize the future of America for totalitarian globalists
- Cyber Attacks on Satellites Could Spark Global Catastrophe
- BBC Begins Experiments With Holographic Television.