Math: 6÷2(1+2) = ?

A 'variable' is another name for 'any number'

Because we cannot write 2*3 as 23, we put 2(3).
2n is 2n, the same as 2(n), but that is redundant.

This is exactly what we are arguing over here:

[link to www.matthewcompher.com]

Here is what I got:

1. 9y^2 z^6/x^2 (that's meant to be fraction, as in it's over x^2)

2. 17a^2 b^2 x

3. x = 1/4y2 + y

You read it yet?

The best fighter pilots in the world make mistakes. The smartest people in the world make errors. Don't let one PhD convince you his answer is the "right" one. There are several Doctorates still debating this very thing. Trust me.
Again, don't think of it how you should enter it into a calculator. That said, even wolfram knows 2n/2n = 1 and 6/2n = 3/n, but then it doesn't know how to properly substitute 2+1 for n. That is because you can't teach logic to computers. Once they are programmed, they will parse a certain way.
That said, I see you are now second guessing yourself. That, my friend, takes balls. You have the biggest balls here, for 2 reasons:
1 - admitting you could be wrong
2 - researching more to educate yourself

The rest of these guys that refuse to read any further than their own nose, could learn something from you.

[link to www.basic-mathematics.com]

Copy and paste it into this math solver webpage.
See what the computer tells you the answer is.

6÷2(1+2)=y

You could sub all of these for variables:
6÷2*(1+2)=y

You always do bracket first (that IS the rules).
Thus it becomes:
6÷2*(3)=y
6÷2*3=y

I think we can all agree on that.

OK.............


Now let's sub these with some variables:
6÷2*3=y

n will now mean 3:
6÷2*n=y

Which becomes:
6÷2n=y

Let's rearrange to put all variable on one side.
6=2ny

Now let's solve for ny
6÷2=ny
3=ny

Now let's swap n back with a 3.
3=3y

Now let's solve for y.
3=3y
3÷3=y
1=y

I still get my same answer (because I followed the proper math-rules).

I will read it in a sec. I have researched the exact meaning of the obelus, depicted here:

[link to www.freeimagehosting.net]

It was used as a grouping symbol. Not that is applies anymore, it was first used like this:
6 ÷ 2 + 1 really meant 6 ÷ (2+1). neither here nor there, but I thought you would find that interesting, i guess.

6=2ny

6=2*3*1

If simple arithmetic is a subject of such controversy, how can we hope to have any rational basis for agreement on any other thought processes?

Logical reasoning is useful for a lot of things, but not for deciding what is right or wrong, or true or false.

Those decisions must be made by the whole being, in context with the whole Universe.

I do, and you are right. But it is here and there lol...

You are right. I was wrong. My TI83 is wrong, wolfram alpha is wrong...

Do you have a source for that image?

That is hilarious. He referenced the exact page of the book I found earlier this week.
But again, if you go back to that algebra page I gave you, we group variables together, and even YOU did those math equations using those very same rules, yet you are using a different 'rule' to get your 9, therefore, contradicting yourself.
Anyway, I gotta run for now. Sorry for a few snappy remarks at you earlier, I thought you were one of the other guys trolling, then I realized it was you after I replied :D

Just in case it wasn't "easy enough" to follow my logic, I will show you my steps in the transform I used.

6÷2n=y
6=y*2n
6=2n*y
6=2ny

6=2*3*1

The meaning of the obelus is where our problems arose from...

And even me googling it doesn't give me a definitive answer, just that blog which leads me to believe you are correct and I have been wrong.

All good I gave really shitty responses to people in this thread. Joke is on me, I was wrong. Thanks for your work.

If you have anything else on the obelus, post it here.

I made it. If you look at your screen at an angle, you should see caper_26 as a watermark

I have already, and of course, I was told I was retarded, etc etc.

Yea I see it. Thanks man.

Yup. That was me. Sorry. You were right. I am retarded.

I am surprised you accept the obelus as the deal breaker, and not the identity property.
a / 1a = 1. This is not disputable. Even ask your PhD friend about that. the 1 is there whether you write it or not. Anyone who knows math knows this. Therefore a/a is always 1, and a/1a is always 1. Therefore a/2a MUST be 1/2, and 6/2a is 3/a, and a = 2+1 so 6/2(2+1) = 3/(2+1).

The identity law is something we all can read, and accept. For me, that was deal breaker, along with fractional coefficients written with a '/' all use ( ) as well.

You are the furthest from retarded. This equation is/was debated by doctorates. Those guys are far from retarded as well.

I understand, but the original equation was written with an obelus, NOT a solidus...

So how did it go?

The 9 way or 1.

Somebody has to put this to vote.

And yes, I understand your point with the identity property as well... I also suppose I thought the identity property is normally written out as a fraction, not with a solidus. Nevertheless I don't even think that matters now... a solidus or an obelus imply a fraction...

But the identity law doesn't change, and is used the same way.


a ÷ a = 1 (There is still a 1 in front of both a's)
1a ÷ 1a = 1 (not 1*a÷1*a)

therefore, 6 ÷ 2n = 3/n

PS: The obelus can be interchanged with a divisional slash, but not as a Solidus. Check this out, forgot I had it:

===================================

I was a prick and an adamant 9er... caper_26 turned me into a 1er...

I obviously need to brush up on basic mathematical properties...

Holy Shit!!

126 pages for a math problem???

What the hell???

Who gives that much of a shit??

It's 1.

Did anyone else catch the bold part in the OP?

Thank you very very much.

And wow, I was even thinking a solidus WAS the same as a slash...

I do...

Obviously, I thought you were wrong. I read your posts up until page like 30 I think and I saw no proof.