## Math: 6÷2(1+2) = ? | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 31088026 United States 01/13/2013 01:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 29226394 United States 01/13/2013 01:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 1617215 United States 01/13/2013 01:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Coma Patient #7User ID: 29804770 United States 01/13/2013 01:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Some of you need practice as badly as I did, I got a spark for engineering a few months back so I've been doing a lot of math lately. A really good place to practice is [link to www.khanacademy.org (secure)] and don't forget the math tricks [link to www.youtube.com] Last Edited by Coma Patient #7 on 01/13/2013 01:39 AM Through will of thought we control our emotions and thoughts are often no more difficult to control then we make them to be. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 07:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | My 4 year old can type 9 and call people morons. Back it up with something. Read THIS for example: Distribute 2 into the parentheses. Why? because it is a factor of the original terms INSIDE them, and cannot be ripped apart. I will show you why: 6 = 4+2 = 2(2+1) = 2(3) The 2 is a common factor of 4 & 2. No matter which way you view it, the value 6 MUST maintain its value. Just as you cannot take the 4 from (4+2) and divide it into a number with the "+ 2". I cannot take the 2 from 2(2+1) and divide it into another number without the (2+1). You ARE allowed to distribute before division, or any other operator, since you are allowed to simplify any equation first. There are MANY references which state "Remove parentheses by distribution" Try Googling that as a search term. 6÷2(2+1) = 6÷(4+2) = 1 Now, some people have argued that you don't NEED to distribute the 2; you just add the 2+1, and end up with 2(3). Then they go on the say that this is the same as 2*(3). WRONG! You STILL have parentheses and STILL need to distribute that 2 inside them, for the reasons discussed about factoring above. Therefore you have this: 6÷2(3) and must distribute like this: 6÷2(3+0) = 6÷[2(3) + 2(0)] = 6÷6 = 1 These people who get 9 try and rip the 2 away from the parentheses by inserting a times symbol like this: 6÷2*(3), and then do the division of 6÷2 first. I explained the illegalities of doing this, since the 2 is a factor of the 2+1. Lastly, 6÷2 is NOT (6/2), as in (6/2)(2+1). This is totally incorrect, since it lacks that parentheses in the original equation. Check any online or written text. Leading fractions as a coefficient ALWAYS have ( ) around them. I hope this clears things up. Regards. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 07:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 29097718 United States 01/13/2013 07:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | My 4 year old can type 9 and call people morons. Back it up with something. Read THIS for example: Quoting: Distribute 2 into the parentheses. Why? because it is a factor of the original terms INSIDE them, and cannot be ripped apart. I will show you why: 6 = 4+2 = 2(2+1) = 2(3) The 2 is a common factor of 4 & 2. No matter which way you view it, the value 6 MUST maintain its value. Just as you cannot take the 4 from (4+2) and divide it into a number with the "+ 2". I cannot take the 2 from 2(2+1) and divide it into another number without the (2+1). You ARE allowed to distribute before division, or any other operator, since you are allowed to simplify any equation first. There are MANY references which state "Remove parentheses by distribution" Try Googling that as a search term. 6÷2(2+1) = 6÷(4+2) = 1 Now, some people have argued that you don't NEED to distribute the 2; you just add the 2+1, and end up with 2(3). Then they go on the say that this is the same as 2*(3). WRONG! You STILL have parentheses and STILL need to distribute that 2 inside them, for the reasons discussed about factoring above. Therefore you have this: 6÷2(3) and must distribute like this: 6÷2(3+0) = 6÷[2(3) + 2(0)] = 6÷6 = 1 These people who get 9 try and rip the 2 away from the parentheses by inserting a times symbol like this: 6÷2*(3), and then do the division of 6÷2 first. I explained the illegalities of doing this, since the 2 is a factor of the 2+1. Lastly, 6÷2 is NOT (6/2), as in (6/2)(2+1). This is totally incorrect, since it lacks that parentheses in the original equation. Check any online or written text. Leading fractions as a coefficient ALWAYS have ( ) around them. I hope this clears things up. Regards. Anonymous Coward 32057798 This is so wrong, it is not even funny. The fact that you wrote up this whole thing is down right hysterical. I weep for our society. p.s. I work for a Univeristy. I have comfirmed the answer is 9 from 3 different math professors, excel, and my own solution. You sir are a nitwit. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 26789708 United Kingdom 01/13/2013 08:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 15684263 United States 01/13/2013 08:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 29086850 United States 01/13/2013 08:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 25518340 United States 01/13/2013 08:29 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If you think the equation should = 9 then it should look like this: Quoting: (6/2)(1+2)= 3*3 =9 but we have: 6/2(1+2)= 6/6 =1 because you do the sum in the bracket first. So the answer is 1. Anonymous Coward 26789708 Correct. Anonymous Coward 29086850 That was my first answer. I now have the urge to strut. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 29086850 United States 01/13/2013 08:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If you think the equation should = 9 then it should look like this: Quoting: (6/2)(1+2)= 3*3 =9 but we have: 6/2(1+2)= 6/6 =1 because you do the sum in the bracket first. So the answer is 1. Anonymous Coward 26789708 Correct. Anonymous Coward 29086850 That was my first answer. I now have the urge to strut. Anonymous Coward 25518340 As well you should. It's amazing how such a simple math problem could go 97 pages. |

THE CORRECT ANSWER User ID: 1576458 United States 01/13/2013 08:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | is 9 HAHAAHA some of you came up with negitive numbers, WTF! [link to web2.0calc.com] type in the problem and hit equals. |

Person445User ID: 11438968 Canada 01/13/2013 08:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Mensa posted this on their FB page about a week ago. I can only assume someone has answered it already but I'll give it a go. 6÷2(1+2) = ? 3(1+2) = ? 3(3) = 9 Order of operations are a grade 9 level understanding of math. www.therussellscottshow.com www.viralsoma.com www.thewestcoasttruth.com |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 5572916 United States 01/13/2013 09:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 28938484 United States 01/13/2013 09:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | seems all agree we must get rid of the () so we do whats in the () first by adding 2+1 to get 3 so 6/2(3) we still have those pesky () so we must get rid of them first so we now multiply 2 by the 3 in () we have now gotten rid of the () and are left with the simple equation 6/6 however I wish to write that problem I will always get 1 |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 28938484 United States 01/13/2013 09:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Mensa posted this on their FB page about a week ago. I can only assume someone has answered it already but I'll give it a go. Quoting: 6÷2(1+2) = ? 3(1+2) = ? 3(3) = 9 Order of operations are a grade 9 level understanding of math. Person445 Sorry but you divided 6 by 2 before getting rid of the () thus violating the order of operations. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 1073423 United Kingdom 01/13/2013 10:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

pinkpixiexxUser ID: 9096725 United Kingdom 01/13/2013 10:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I still say 1....can't believe this is still going...lol "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace" "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.” |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 19023838 United States 01/13/2013 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | We're fucked. The answer is 1. Order of operations Parenthesis Exponents Division and multiplication (left to right) Addition and subtraction (left to right) You're all a bunch of failures. I even verified my answer. I learned this shit in 5th grade. [link to www.mathsisfun.com] |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 27301486 Germany 01/13/2013 10:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | We're fucked. The answer is 1. Quoting: Order of operations Parenthesis Exponents Division and multiplication (left to right) Addition and subtraction (left to right) You're all a bunch of failures. I even verified my answer. I learned this shit in 5th grade. [link to www.mathsisfun.com] Anonymous Coward 19023838 No, the answer is 9. 6 : 2 x (1+2) = 6 : 2 x 3 = 9 |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 1576458 United States 01/13/2013 11:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 1576458 United States 01/13/2013 11:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 1576458 United States 01/13/2013 11:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 6/2(2+1) the sign you use for division in this problem doesnt matter. Quoting: seems all agree we must get rid of the () so we do whats in the () first by adding 2+1 to get 3 so 6/2(3) we still have those pesky () so we must get rid of them first so we now multiply 2 by the 3 in () we have now gotten rid of the () and are left with the simple equation 6/6 however I wish to write that problem I will always get 1 Anonymous Coward 28938484 [link to web2.0calc.com] says 9 |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 1576458 United States 01/13/2013 11:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | My 4 year old can type 9 and call people morons. Back it up with something. Read THIS for example: Quoting: Distribute 2 into the parentheses. Why? because it is a factor of the original terms INSIDE them, and cannot be ripped apart. I will show you why: 6 = 4+2 = 2(2+1) = 2(3) The 2 is a common factor of 4 & 2. No matter which way you view it, the value 6 MUST maintain its value. Just as you cannot take the 4 from (4+2) and divide it into a number with the "+ 2". I cannot take the 2 from 2(2+1) and divide it into another number without the (2+1). You ARE allowed to distribute before division, or any other operator, since you are allowed to simplify any equation first. There are MANY references which state "Remove parentheses by distribution" Try Googling that as a search term. 6÷2(2+1) = 6÷(4+2) = 1 Now, some people have argued that you don't NEED to distribute the 2; you just add the 2+1, and end up with 2(3). Then they go on the say that this is the same as 2*(3). WRONG! You STILL have parentheses and STILL need to distribute that 2 inside them, for the reasons discussed about factoring above. Therefore you have this: 6÷2(3) and must distribute like this: 6÷2(3+0) = 6÷[2(3) + 2(0)] = 6÷6 = 1 These people who get 9 try and rip the 2 away from the parentheses by inserting a times symbol like this: 6÷2*(3), and then do the division of 6÷2 first. I explained the illegalities of doing this, since the 2 is a factor of the 2+1. Lastly, 6÷2 is NOT (6/2), as in (6/2)(2+1). This is totally incorrect, since it lacks that parentheses in the original equation. Check any online or written text. Leading fractions as a coefficient ALWAYS have ( ) around them. I hope this clears things up. Regards. Anonymous Coward 32057798 WRONG [link to web2.0calc.com] 9! |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 26815964 United States 01/13/2013 11:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 27301486 Germany 01/13/2013 11:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | We're fucked. The answer is 1. Quoting: Order of operations Parenthesis Exponents Division and multiplication (left to right) Addition and subtraction (left to right) You're all a bunch of failures. I even verified my answer. I learned this shit in 5th grade. [link to www.mathsisfun.com] Anonymous Coward 19023838 No, the answer is 9. 6 : 2 x (1+2) = 6 : 2 x 3 = 9 Anonymous Coward 27301486 |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 1576458 United States 01/13/2013 11:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 20166944 United States 01/13/2013 11:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The 2 is not inside of the parenthesis therefore need not be distributed. In order to mandate the distribution of 2, the problem would have to read as 6÷(2(1+2)). Since it is not, PEMDAS works it out just fine. 6÷2(1+2) becomes 6÷2(3), which is the same as 6÷2*3. Simple order of operations. 9 |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 32057798 Canada 01/13/2013 11:29 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Distribute 2 into the parentheses. Why? because it is a factor of the original terms INSIDE them, and cannot be ripped apart. I will show you why: 6 = 4+2 = 2(2+1) = 2(3) The 2 is a common factor of 4 & 2. No matter which way you view it, the value 6 MUST maintain its value. Just as you cannot take the 4 from (4+2) and divide it into a number with the "+ 2". I cannot take the 2 from 2(2+1) and divide it into another number without the (2+1). You ARE allowed to distribute before division, or any other operator, since you are allowed to simplify any equation first. There are MANY references which state "Remove parentheses by distribution" Try Googling that as a search term. 6÷2(2+1) = 6÷(4+2) = 1 Now, some people have argued that you don't NEED to distribute the 2; you just add the 2+1, and end up with 2(3). Then they go on the say that this is the same as 2*(3). WRONG! You STILL have parentheses and STILL need to distribute that 2 inside them, for the reasons discussed about factoring above. Therefore you have this: 6÷2(3) and must distribute like this: 6÷2(3+0) = 6÷[2(3) + 2(0)] = 6÷6 = 1 These people who get 9 try and rip the 2 away from the parentheses by inserting a times symbol like this: 6÷2*(3), and then do the division of 6÷2 first. I explained the illegalities of doing this, since the 2 is a factor of the 2+1. Lastly, 6÷2 is NOT (6/2), as in (6/2)(2+1). This is totally incorrect, since it lacks that parentheses in the original equation. Check any online or written text. Leading fractions as a coefficient ALWAYS have ( ) around them. I hope this clears things up. Regards. Anonymous Coward 32057798 This is so wrong, it is not even funny. The fact that you wrote up this whole thing is down right hysterical. I weep for our society. p.s. I work for a Univeristy. I have comfirmed the answer is 9 from 3 different math professors, excel, and my own solution. You sir are a nitwit. Anonymous Coward 29097718 Saying it is wrong, doesn't make it so. Proof anything I said to be other than true. Let me ask you this: Assuming the Identity Law is correct in saying a = 1a = 1(a), what is the answer to: a/1a = ? |

- Donald Trump is now the Republican nominee Trump to stand unopposed as John Kasich ends Republican nomination bid
- 5/04/2016 -- New Fault + Large crack in ground forms in Pennsylvania / East Coast USA
- Greenpeace has leaked a copy of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
- Earth Houses 1 Trillion Species of Microbe, Only 0.001 Percent are Known to Science
- Strange 'alien structures' captured on Lunar Orbiter circling the Moon 'are evidence of UFO colony'
- Mystery aircraft stuns onlookers
- The Drug-Sniffing Car.
- Want to Know What Facebook Really Thinks of Journalists? Here's What Happened When It Hired Some.
- New study prompts caution for all those taking diabetes medication: some drug brands may increase the spread of cancer
- Software security group demonstrates how hackers can use ransomware to harm and potentially kill hospital patients
- Consumption of rare steak may be infecting Americans' minds with a parasitic bug that causes anger and rage
- ay 4 - J. D. Heyes It's not just in the meal, but the packaging: BPA toxicity in fast food packaging could lead to high rates of brain defects
- CONFIRMED: Cancer is entirely a man-made disease
- Mood-altering statins extend lifespan by a mere three days
- SMOKING GUN: Michigan scientist told colleague to 'bump out' high lead test results to avoid having to tell the public
- Are You Ready For “Lab-Grown Meat” In Your Future?
- Minnesotta Man Has Microchips Implanted In Skin
- White House Poised To Create First Monument To Gay Rights Struggle
- Town Passes Law to Use Cops to Combat Bullying by Going After the Parents
- Google Now Has Access To Millions of Patients’ Medical Records
- United Arab Emirates Is Considering Building a Fake Mountain to Bring Real Rain
- The Convergence of Medicine and IoT Will Change Healthcare Forever
- The 6 Alien Species Currently Fighting for Control Over Earth
- CT Democrats Pass Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence
- Do Public Defenders Spend Less Time on Black Clients?