Hey guys can you help me with my math homework?
I have to write a 200 words essay for tomorrow and don't have enough time.
Pls help me.
9
1
>>712883236
kys,it's 6
>>712883295
6/2=3
3*(1+2)=9
9
>>712883236
Wait,how the fuck did you get 9?
6 / 2(1+2) Distribute
6/ 2 + 4
3 + 4
7
>>712883383
2+1 = 3
6/2 = 3
3*3 = 9
order of operations.
>>712883158
Could be 6 or 9, depending on whether you follow PEMDAS or BEDMAS.
>>712883499
How does it make 6?
>>712883370
Omfg
6/2(1+2)
6/2*3
6/6
1
fukin anon doesn't know basic math
multiply>%
What the fuck does a 200 word essay have to do with 9?
>>712883446
kek
>>712883158
what lection are you learning
or wth grade are you in
>>712883446
wtf
these are not linear equations
>>712883553
Left to right nigga
1+2 =3
2×3=6
6÷6=1
Corect answer is 1
>>712883158
Basic algebra
Inside par. first
6÷2(1+3)
6÷2(3)
6÷6
1
>>712883499
PEDMAS AND BEDMAS are exactly the same thing..
P = parentheses
B = brackets
6 / 2 = 3
(1 + 2) = 3
3*3 = 9
6 / (2*1 + 2*2)
6 / (2 + 4)
6 / 6 = 1
>>712883759
You can't be this dumb
>>712883907
So why do you do the multiplication before the division? PEMDAS has nothing to do with that. Answer is 9
>>712884010
You underestimate my power
>>712883907
When operators have the same order, they are solved left to right. Answer is 1.
>>712883922
Yes then left to right
>>712884026
kys
>>712884111
Meant 9
15
If you didn't know it was 9 instantly.... get the FUCK off the internet for being so fucking retardidly autistic you fuck twats
>>712884026
Par. then brackets then left to right
>>712884010
Literally autistic
okay so let me make this simple,everyone who answered 1,congratulations you now posses the mind power of a 2 year old
on the contrary,you idiots who answered anything else should go jump of a building because you don't have the brain capacity to calculate basic maths,kys faggots
It's 1.
Use PEMDAS.
6/2(1+2)
=6/2(3)
=6/6
=1?
>>712883158
Too few brackets.
>>712883158
I believe it's 1.
2(1+2) means 2 x 1 + 2 x 2 = 2 + 4 = 6.
6 / 6 = 1.
kek /b/ youre as retard as niggers
Its 1. Anyone saying something different either dont know their order of operations or are just trolling.
>>712884316
God dammit, try it yourself.
Input in a calculator
6/2*3 and see the solution
>>712884531
nice grammer Einstein
oh my fuck i hope most of you are kidding!
Always the paranthesis first
6/2*(1+2) => 6/2*3
then multiplikation
6/2*3 => 6/6
and then dividing
6/6= 1
or don't be an autist and use a calculator
PEMDAS my niggas
6/2(1+2)
Parentheses first nigga
6/2(3)
Multiply 2 and 3 nigga
6/6
1 nigga
>>712883158
The answer is 9. PEMDAS. Parentheses, exponents, multiplication/division (left to right), addition/subtraction (left to right).
So it's 6/2(1+2)
Parentheses makes it 6/2(3)
Division is leftmost, so it becomes 3(3) which is 9.
Seriously, just Google PEMDAS or PEDMAS or whatever. It's all the same.
>>712884551
:^)
>>712884506
But then you have to look at the complete term, fag
6/2*(1+2)= 6/2*1 + 6/2*2 = 9
>>712884711
you forgot multiplikation before dividing ;) so its 1
>>712884936
>forgot multiplikation before dividing ;)
kidding?
>>712883158
The answer is always 42
>>712884936
Multiplication and division are considered on the same order, so it's left to right. Same with addition and subtraction.
>>712885032
multiplication and division* English is not my native language
be careful not to mistake 6/2(1+2) with 6/(2(1+2)).
first one means "divide 6 by 2 and multiply with 3", second one means "divide 6 by 6"
>>712885154
But who tells you, that we need to do multiplication before division?
the right way to write down the problem is this. 6/(2(1+2))
>>712885154
I'm pretty sure multiplication is always first.. but i understand that you've learned otherwise? hold on, ill type this shit into TI-nspire
for all you retards that can't do basic math
7
>>712884245
fuck off new user
>>712885402
was meant for >>712885267
Answer is 9. You can even check with Google. Just search 6/2(1+2) and it will tell you.
>>712883158
Its 3
>6/2=3
>1+2=3
It's 9 you autists
>>712885429
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6%2F2(1%2B2)
lol
easy peasy
here's a simply start of this essay
The answer to the equation is solved by the order of operations, PEMDAS for short. First, you would answer the variables in the parenthesis due to having more priority in this problem. 1+2 is 3, and now we are able to move the 3 out of the parenthesis and onto the main problem. 6/2x3. We must first multiply 2 by 3 due to PEMDAS; M standing for multiplication. The answer we get out of this is 6. 6 divided by 6 is 1, and therefore, we have our answer.
I knew /b/ got worse but being unable to do something so simple?
It's obviously 1 you damn retards
>>712883499
It could never be 6 you stupid faggot fuck. I hope you try that shit in a college math class. Faggot asshole fucking dick faggot. Fuck your mother
>>712885402
If you look at the formula and remove the bracket, you will see, they have the same order:
6/2*(1+2) = 6/2*1 + 6/2*2 = 3 + 6 = 9 =/=
6/2*(1+2) = 6/(2*1 +2*2) = 6/(2+4) = 1
9
>>712883158
1+2=3
6/2=3
3*3=9
So its 9
>>712884594
It's not 2x3 it's 2(1+2) retard. And yes it does matter, 2(1+2) ties it together.
2(1+2) = 2 + 4
6/(2+4) = 1
6/2(1+2)
I. 2(1+2)= 2+4= 6
II. 6/6= 1
The meme is that it's improper syntax, thus confusing for retards. Here's how you actually write it. When you do it this way it's much easier to understand why it's 9.
>Let 6÷2=x
>1+2=y
>So the question is x÷y
>If the answer is z,
>x÷y=z
>So,x=yz
>Now say x and y are both integers positive integers. Let x and y be both mxn matrices where m and n are to be found
I'll leave the test to you op the answer should be obvious now
>>712885709
Yeah my whole life has been a lie.. or at least the way i calculate stuff, but this is really fucking with me, cause i have never (that i remember) gotten in troubles for this, but the (left to right) rule with division and multiplication, i acutally didn't know.. I remember learning at a very young age that you always multiply first.. both ways are being argued in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URcUvFIUIhQ
>>712886022
*rest
>>712883759
PEMDAS, homie g.
Da answuh is 1, holmes.
>>712885862
You.. you. you can't just.. When you solve a bracket, you have to move everything into the bracket.
Or are you telling me 0.5 ( 1 + 3 ) = 1 * ( 2 + 6 ) = 8
>>712886034
and it's pretty crazy, because I actually studied math at a - somewhat - high level, so I should have fucked a lot of stuff up, doing it my way. but i dont really recall any fuckups on that basis
>>712886094
"NOTE: Even though Multiplication comes before Division in PEMDAS, the two are done in the same step, from left to right. Addition and Subtraction are also done in the same step."
I'm sure you're trolling at this point, but whatever. If you're being serious you're fucking retarded friendo.
This is some weirdest shit I saw on b yet
>>712886034
Don't worry, this is actually troll question aimed to fuck with people. Everyone would use brackets to show, what was meant
>>712884615
Einstein... OF NIGGER
haHAA AMIRITE?
>>712886125
??? Are americans really this stupid?
0,5 x 1 =/= 2
0,5 x 3 =/= 6
0,5 (1 + 3) = 1 ( 0,5 + 1,5 )
>>712883158
6 ÷ 2 ( 1 + 2 ) can be rewritten as A ÷ B C, where A = 6, B = 2, and C = (1 + 2 ) = 3.
B C can be replaced by D, where D = B * C, or D = 2 * 3 = 6.
So then we have A ÷ D, which is 6 ÷ 6 ,or 1.
Hence, the answer is one, because the (P)(E)(MD)(AS) rules mean you must completely eliminate the parenthesis first. So, 6 ÷ 2 ( 1 + 2 ) = 6 ÷ 2 ( 3 ) = 6 ÷ 6 = 1.
What is ( A + B ) ( D + C )? It's AD + AC + BD + BC. If B = 0, then it's AD + AC. So you can also try it that way: 6 ÷ 2 ( 1 + 2 ) = 6 ÷ ( 2*1 + 2*2 ) = 6 ÷ 6 = 1.
>>712885954
the simplest and best solution to the question was completely ignored
>>712886477
dubs don't lie
>>712885370
No it's not, it is perfectly fine, you're just retarded.
Its 1 you fucking autists
ITT: dipshits
The real money question is:
EXPLAIN HOW THE FUCK .9999~ IS EQUAL TO ONE
>>712883236
>>712883370
correct
>>712886477
you seem stupid, you told me in your post, I can do this.
0.5 ( 1 + 3 ) = 1/2 ( 1 + 3 ) = 1/2 * 1 + 1/2 * 3 = 2 =/= your stupid solution here:
0.5 ( 1 + 3 ) = 1/2 ( 1 + 3 ) = 1 / ( 2*1 + 2*3 )
>>712886712
.999~/3=.333~
.333~= 1/3
1/3*3=1
therefore .999~=1
>>712886712
It isn't by logic, the autist just decided that it is.
0,999.... will never reach 1.
>>712886712
You put 6/2 in parenthesis you retard of course it said 9
>>712885954
>>712886582
No, because that's written as ( 6 ÷ 2 ) ( 1 + 2 ), not 6 ÷ 2 ( 1 + 2 ). There is a strict set of rules for writing mathematical statements, and this is simply an example that most people don't know shit about the actual rules of mathematics.
>>712885584
>http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6%2F2(1%2B2)
Nigger, who the fuck told you multiplication is of higher order than division? Find him and tell him he needs a good beating to freshen up his mind.
ITT fucking monkeys
Look at >>712886368 & >>712885564
>pic related
>>712886712
its a limit bro
>>712886430
Yeah I guess, it just seems like a pretty fundemental fuckup for someone who has actually studied (kinda) advanced math.. oh well, now I know, let's do this one now
>>712886988
You are a monkey, it's 1. Easy way to tell apart retards who haven't actually studied mathematics.
Also you added * there in your retard helper software. See >>712886869
>>712886022
666?
>>712886848
Google did faggot
Just fucking google OPs shit
6/2(1+2)
Its 2016
>>712887515
So, whats wrong, when I solve the bracket?
6/2(1+2)=6/2*1 + 6/2*2 = 9 ?
PEMDAS
>>712883158
https://discord.gg/YwDV95k joinnnnnnn
>>712887376
Because a = b, when you do the last step, to remove the (a² - ab) = 0, you divide by 0 and that is undefined.
>>712887817
6/2(1+2) = 6/(2x1 + 2x2) = 1/6 (2x1 + 2x2) = 1/6 ( 2 + 4) = 1/6 (6) = 6/6 = 1
You have to understand that 2(1+2) is tied together. 2 is part of the bracket complex.
>>712887899
Did you reply to >>712887817
?
Then I want to ask you this:
What is when you have
1/2(1+2)?
>>712888009
Nice spotted
>>712884399
BEDMAS
B (operations INSIDE a bracket)
There is only a single digit in the bracket
6/2(3)
3(3)
9
You
Fucking
Autists
>>712888135
Ah, you replied.
>>712888169
was my next question.
you have
0.5 (1+3) = 1/2 (1+3) = 1 / (2 + 6 )
Pemdas is for retards
That's why they teach it in American public school
>>712888191
I like those math and logik riddles. The best one so far was the einstein riddle.
>>712883158
first everything in the brackets
order of operations: divide -> multiplications -> subtractions -> addition
>6/2 * (1 + 2)
>6/2 * (3)
>3* (3)
>9
>>712883158
6 / 2 x (1+2) = 3 x 3 = 9
Monkeys can't do maths
Nobody say 42 ? Well, 42 (or 9).
>>712883158
54 68 61 6e 6b 73 20 66 6f 72 20 77 61 73 74 69 6e 67 20 79 6f 75 72 20 74 69 6d 65 2c 20 79 6f 75 27 6c 6c 20 6e 65 76 65 72 20 72 65 63 6f 76 65 72 20 69 74 20 61 67 61 69 6e 2e
>>712884010
When doing multiplication/division and addition/subrltraction you go left to right dumbass
>>712883158
It's 9
>>712883158
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6%2F2(1%2B2)
The people saying 9 never paid attention in algebra. Because in standard elementary arithmetic, the concept of a "term" is not defined, and does not need to be defined, because all symbols are made explicit and all values are nonvariable.
In arithmetic 2(1+2) is simply an invalid construct. In algebra, 2(1+2) is a single term. Consider (1+2) to be the value of x, such that the term is 2x.
6/2x is 1/3 of an x.
The value of x is 1+2, or 3.
1/3 of an x, that is, 1/3 of 3, is 1.
If it were written 6 ÷ 2 * (1+2), that would be a different algebraic construct. Algebra consists of terms divided by operators. Parentheses are not operators.
Please excuse my diarrhea ass stains.
check em
>>712888305
Here it is explained very simply:
>You have to get rid of all parentheses before any other operations. The 3 is still in a parentheses. And to get that out you need to multiply it out with the 2 and get 6. 6 ÷ 6 is 1. Parentheses might mean multiplication but theres still a parentheses there. You make it seem like if this problem had an exponent in it you could just make it into multiplication than leaving it as an exponent. 3^2 is 3 × 3 but when it comes to pemdas it's still an exponent. Therefore the answer to the problem is 1.
6/2(1+2) = 6/2(3)
a(x + y) is a single term. it is ALWAYS evaluated as such, and ALWAYS resolves to (ax + ay).
>>712883158
>doing a 200 word essay on a math problem
Don't worry, Trump will fix the education system.
the ONLY correct answer is 9.
fuck everybody.
>>712888957
So you are telling me 1 = 9, that is awesome, we may have won a prize with this
9 = 3 * 3 = 3 ( 1 + 2 ) = 6 / 2 ( 1 + 2 ) = 6 / (2 + 4) = 6 / 6 = 1
>>712888765
I misphrased that slightly.
x=1+2=3
y=6/2x
y=6/(2*3)
y=6/6
y=1.
>>712888678
My Linux KCalc says 9, it is autist to ?
Google calculator says 9, autism ?
This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPe1aBW_YCg says 9, autism ?
Autist.
>>712889232
3(1+2) does not equal 6/2(1+2)
it equals (6/2)(1+2).
>>712889249
>>712889319
Use a texas instruments calculator. You know, one programmed in accordance with the definition of a term. Terms are separated by operators, that's how algebra works.
>>712889446
Respecting the definition of a term. 2(1+3) is, again, a single term.
>>712889444
This.
>>712889319
Yes you are autist and so is the guy in the video. Low IQ animal.
6/2(1+2) =/= (6/2)x(1+2)
>>712883158
you don't have enough tie for 200 words? that's just like half a page... get yourself together bro, 200 words is nothing, you could even write 5k words in a night with enough coffee
>>712889444
ok, if you think so:
3*3 = 3(1+2) = 3*3 = 6/2*3
1 since you solve for paranthesis first before moving on to divide. Seriously if you can't solve this problem than contemplate suicide.
>>712883158
>>712889907
ah yea.. and it's 9 (6/2=3*(1+2)=9
>>712889554
Change the batteries.
>>712889737
Google is not a scientific calculator. It can't handle algebraic terms properly. Use TI or Mathcad or something like that.
Fuck every one of you that says anything other than 9.
>>712889940
None of which equal 6/2(1+2).
>>712890689
Again you added x there you faggot.
I'm done with you low IQ animals.
t. god tier mensa dude and med student
>>712883158
200 words and you don't have enough time? That's like a page dude, are you mentally retarded?
>>712890689
That's 6/2*(1+2)
Not the same thing as 6/2(1+2).
6/2(1+2) has three implicit symbols via juxtaposition, not one. The three implicit symbols are inherent to how an algebraic term is defined.
To make all symbols explicit in 6/2(1+2) you write it as 6/[2*(1+2)}
>>712890891
Yup, because that's how it works faggot, otherwise you get a fatal error. Fucking cunt.
>>712891153
In other words, your program there is incapable of processing the concept of an algebraic term.
>>712890950
Thank you for a nice reasonable awnser!
>>712884615
grammar*
>>712891247
Just like your brain...
>>712883236
PEMDAS
>>712891305
I lol'd
>>712885650
im anon and ive been in college for 3 whole months look at how sophisticated and smart i am waa waaaaa
>>712891336
See here.
>>712890950
>>712883158
If we only talk about the simple rules then in descendant order of here it is:
1. Parenthesis (basically evaluate this list on stuff inside the parenthesis starting from the innermost one. Basically you evaluate the tree from the bottom.)
2. exponent
3. multiplication, division
4. addition, subtraction
Notice that operators with similar properties are on the same level. You evaluate 1, then 2, etc. doing each left to right.
Stuff inside parenthesis must be evaluated first so it gets simplified into a single term.
Aka
3+(2+3*6)*2+1 = 3+(2+18)*2+1=3+20*2+1=3+40+1=43+1=44
You could write it like this
x=2+3*6 = 18+2=20
so 3+x*2+1= 3+20*2+1 = 3+40+1=43+1=44
I don't what the ÷ operator exactly means in OPs pic though.
Most of the time it means division, but I think some people think it might mean a fraction.
The problem with this that 3*2/2*3 doesn't equal to (3*2)/(2*3).
3*2/2*3 = 6/2*3=3*3=9
(3*2)/(2*3) = 6/6=1
So if ÷ is / then
6/2(1+2)=6/2*(1+2)=6/2*3=3*3=9
If ÷ means a fraction then
6÷2(1+2) = 6/(2*(1+2)) = 6/(2*3)=6/6=1
It helps if instead of the above list you know certain properties of operations like whether it's commutative (order of operations doesn't matter), associative , etc.
>>712891385
PEMDAS is not quite adequate as an answer, that acronym only explains what to do with explicit symbols. Incorporating implicit symbols into order of operations requires that the concept of a term be used, whereby terms at a given hierarchy are separated by an operator and by nothing else.
>>712890708
I will try it slow
3 = 6/2 right?
3 = 1 + 2 right?
So I can replace 3 with either of the above terms, because they are equal
9 = 3*3 right?
3*3 = (1+2)*(1+2) right?
3*3 = 6/2*6/2 right?
now you know, you can interchange them:
3*3 = (1+2)*6/2
3*3 = 6/2*(1+2)
Sorry, I can't give you more of a proof. If you still don't believe me, you may want to look up, how brackets are solved
>>712891604
The concept of the distributive property can also be used of course. Either works to explain.
>>712888512
There's where you go in the wrong
YOU ARE ADDING AN ASTERIX (*)
When there's no asterix, everything inside brackets is simply bound to the number before it, meaning you first solve 2(3) and then divide 6 by that outcome.
I studied mathematics for 1 year, but that was enough to be sure this is the case. At least in professional environments. But hey, this is 4chan afterall
>>712891682
Your final result is
3*3 = 6/2*(1+2)
This is correct, but is not the same as 6/2(1+2) Nowhere in your chain of working from 9 do you or can you get to the original equation of discussion
It is you who needs to look up how brackets are solved (British I assume, I would just say parentheses, but that's irrelevant). Either the concept of an algebraic term or the concept of the distributive property will help you.
>>712886712
0.99... with an infinitely repeating 9 is equal to one because it is infinite. The best way to visualize that is to try and imagine a number small enough that you can add such that adding it to 0.99... -won't- make it overshoot the number 1. Infinite is not just a "large number" like how many people think of it. It does not approach 1, it is equal to 1 and anyone who's taken calculus or higher will tell you the same.
>>712886834
It will never reach 1, but that is where the fucking idea of infinity has been made for. To reach 1.
Infinity is a very complex idea that most humans won't be able to comprehend fully, as you can see for you is the case.
Just remember that infinity was explicitly made for such events.
>>712891682
>>712892125
Following onto this, I'll give an explanation based on the distributive property, for those who didn't understand the concept of algebraic term earlier.
y=6/2(1+2)
y=6/1(2+4) (by the distributive property
x=2+4
1x=x (All variables always have a coefficient of 1 if no coefficient is given. Call it the law of identity, I can't remember what mathematicians call it)
y=6/1(x)
y=6/(x)
y=6/(2+4)
y=6/6
y=1
QED.
>>712892125
Sorry, my blood pressure is really rising.
You can remove the sign whenever you want, else 0.5*(1+1) would be different to 1/2(1+1)
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/99966/whats-the-point-of-dropping-the-multiplication-sign-before-the-parenthesis
>>712892593
Infinity and infinitesimal are not equivalent concepts. There are no real infinitesimals in nature, so our default mathematics doesn't process them as existing, hence they are 0, hence 0.999...+0 =1, hence 0.999....=1.
>>712892681
>0.5*(1+1) would be different to 1/2(1+1)
It is different.
1/2(1+1)=1/1(2+2) (by distributive property) =1/1(4) =1/(4) (law of identity).
It is not different, on the other hand, from (1/2)(1+1)
>>712892671
But what if your second line is wrong, for a mathematical proof, you never can first show the proof for a problem and then based on it solve it.
Better choose your x as (1+2), then you would have 2*x
and
6/2*x or 6/2*(x) whatever you prefer and then left to right
3*(x)
>>712893176
so 1/2*2 = 1/4 ?
>>712893366
Are you disagreeing with the distributive property? Like, saying that that's not an axiom?
I just want you to get that out in the open before we proceed.
>Better choose your x as (1+2), then you would have 2*x
I'm sorry, I have no idea what the fuck you were just trying to say, care to formalize it?
>>712893176
Did you just start pre-algebra? I hope you fail it, because the distributive property is the same as multiplication and you're doing it before division you retard.
>>712893474
Incorrect. 1/2(2) =1/4, but not 1/2*2. You'll notice I never once wrote 1/2*2 anywhere in the post you are replying to.
>>712883236
Correct
>>712883158
>200 words
>tomorrow
I did 3500 word essay plus bibliography in a few hours
Kill yourself pleb
>>712893720
The distributive property is an axiom of algebra., applying it is a step called substitution Axioms of algebra can be applied at any stage within solving an algebra problem. They aren't the same as operators, which are what order of operations apply to. You're applying arithmetic reasoning to an algebraic notation. If OP wrote the original problem without an algebraic notation, we would never have this discussion.
Listen Up faggots
Left to right the order of operation for this is
Brackets
Division and Multiplication
Subtraction and Addition
First thing is first - (1+2) = 3
=> 6÷2*3
Then - 6÷2
=> 3*3
And lastly 3*3
= 9
>>712883907
Lol not so basic for you if you got it wrong
>>712893937
Just to clarify what this means.
It means that in the worldview of PEMDAS, 2(1+2) is not a valid construction. PEMDAS is an arithmetic pedagogical concept that doesn't explain how you deal with a coefficient. 2 is the coefficient of (1+2), or else we would separate it via an operator.
>>712894111
You're adding operators and ignoring the concept of an algebraic term and/or the concept of a coefficient.
>>712894290
>spewing things out of my ass
the post
6/2(1+2)=
6/2(3)=
3(3)= [9] cunts
>>712894362
See proof via distributive property here dumbass.
>>712892671
Would it fucking help if I explained to you that a ? mark in an equation is the exact same concept as putting a y or an x or an e or whatever the fuck you want the label for a variable to be?
6/2(1+2)
6/2(3)
6/6=1
>>712894535
1(2)= 1*(2)
just like 1÷2 = 1/2
what the fuck are you talking about?
Are you here to trigger my math ptsd?
>>712894535
Please stop, I'm starting to think you aren't just trolling anymore.
You can't twist logic in such a way that allows you to use the substitution axiom to simply violate the order of operations.
>>712894749
>1(2)= 1*(2)
This is fundamentally what you're failing to understand. Those notations have equal values but one is written as one algebraic term, the other is written as two algebraic terms, and they do not mean the same things in the context of a greater equation, i.e., in the context of order of operations. 1(2) means that 1 is the coefficient of (2). It can be equivalently notated as [1*(2)], but not as 1*(2), the latter has a different relationship with order of operations, despite having the same value if that's all you write.
>math ptsd?
Explains why you're having such difficulty I guess.
>>712893766
But 1/2*2 = 1/2*(2) = 1/2(2)
Because 1/2 = 0.5 can be interchanged
>>712893644
I am agreeing with the distributive property, but when you use it, you have to move every multiplication and division into the bracket, that surround it.
y=6/2(1+2)
x=1+2
y=6/2(x)
y=6/2x
y=3x
y=3*3
y=9
6/2(1+3)=?
6/2(4)=?
3(4)=?
12=?
wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6%2F2(1%2B3)%3Dx
>>712895100
That construction makes 6/2 the coefficient of 1+2.
The original way of writing it makes 2 the coefficient of 1+2.
>>712883158
I write 200 word comments in a few minutes. You could've done your homework in the time you made this god damn thread.
>>712895191
I am asking. Are you for real? I mean, you cannot fake being this retarded for this long. I don't know where you are from, maybe in Congo you solve equations this way, but in the western world people don't put anything before brackets if they want to multiply. Sorry.
>pic related
>>712895108
I'm not violating order of operations. The order of operations tells you which order OPERATORS apply in. Substitution does not allow you to apply operators, it allows you to exchange an algebraic term for an equivalent algebraic term. Terms are the things you find between operators. Operators (+, -, x, ÷), separate the terms. 2(1+2) does not have an operator separating the 2 and the (1+2), 2 is the coefficient of the entire contents of the parenthesis.
>>712883158
(1+2)=3
6-23
-17
>>712895830
>>712895225
And if you still don't want to fucking believe me with that post, here I will show you, that your solution is wrong:
y=6/2(1+2)
y=6/1(2+4) (by the distributive property
x=2+4
1x=x (All variables always have a coefficient of 1 if no coefficient is given. Call it the law of identity, I can't remember what mathematicians call it)
y=6/1(x)
y=6/(x)
y=6/(2+4)
!!! distributive property
y=(6/2+6/4)
y=4.5
=/=
y=6/6
y=1
proof of your fallacy
>>712895594
You will be laughed out of any math classes you attend if you continue to insist that a coefficient is not equivalent to multiplication. You still have to follow the order of operations, you cannot distribute before doing the division.
>>712895225
>But 1/2*2 = 1/2*(2) = 1/2(2)
Incorrect.
>Because 1/2 = 0.5 can be interchanged
Your premise does not lead to your conclusion. And in this case, you need to replace 0.5 with a (1/2), not just 1/2, or you're altering what is a coefficient of what.
> you have to move every multiplication and division into the bracket,
That's not an equivalent expression to any rule I've ever heard, lemme see what you mean by trying to follow along with your attempt at a proof.
>y=6/2(1+2) (original equation
>x=1+2 (stipulation)
>y=6/2(x) )valid)
>y=6/2x(valid)
>y=3x (invalid! 2 is the coefficient of x. 6/2 was never the coefficient of x. You ignored a coefficient relationship that was inherent to the way the equation was written. the / symbol separates the algebraic terms 6 and 2x,you needed to divide 6 by 2x, not 6 by 2. the algebraic term 2 never existed for 6 to be divided by).
>>712883158
You should study and no instead waste time here...
6/2*(1+2) = x
ok fags if you went to school you'd know that you would work with everything outside of the () first then distribute you dip shits so 6/2=3 3(1+2)= (3x1)+(3x2) = 3+6 = 9
>>712895230
Wolfram is not correctly interpreting the meaning of a coefficient. TI and Mathcad do.
>>712895580
In the western world they in fact do, all the goddamn time. 6/1*a is different from 6/1a. Have you never done algebra at all?
>>712895830
We've been over this, use something correctly programmed like a TI scientific calculator or mathcad.
>>712896140
You can distribute the coefficient into the parentheses it is a coefficient of AT ANY TIME. The distributive property is not an operation, hence, it does not have an order in the order of operations. Coefficients multiply by the whole thing they are a coefficient of, and you cannot divide by a coefficient without dividing by the thing it is a coefficient of.
>>712883158
>>712885429
You got one because of the asterisk between 2 and the parentheses
>>712896103
>y=6/(2+4)
>!!! distributive property
>y=(6/2+6/4)
/ is an operator. Operators separate terms. 6/ is not a coefficient of (2+4), 6 is a term, (2+4) is a term, and they are separated by an operator that demands division.
This post wasn't just wrong, you KNOW it was wrong.
>>712883158
is it 9?
i havent been to primary school in about 20 years so i cant remember fully how to work out the order of operations in bullshit sums like this but i think you work out whats inside the brackets first then multiply it by the rest
sorry correction>>712896404
6/2(1+2) p-e-m-d-a-s so its 6/2(1+3) > 6/2(3) > which is multiplying 6/2 to 3 or 3/1 so 18/2 or 9
>>712896404
That was the ugliest formatting I've ever seen. I can't even read that to figure out what you did wrong.
>>712896734
You realize that I just pointed you to two correctly programmed things? TI and Mathcad both correctly parse things.
Yall er dum it's obviously 31
>>712896531
Vivre libres ou mourir
Sign this petition which demands that the CEO of Reddit resign!
www.change.org/p/reddit-steve-huffman-should-step-down-as-ceo-of-reddit
>>712896942
That's backwards, the asterisk would give you 9 actually, both in reality and on the website.
He shopped the picture, and that online calculator is completely avoiding the issue by not allowing you to type something the way OP's problem was typed.
What the fuck, how retarded can people be? After resolving the parenthesis you read left from right, because you're not a fucking sand nigger who, btw, would be able to solve this.
>>712883158
pemdas
6 / 2 (1+2)
= 6 / 2 (3)
= 3/(3)
= 1
or
6 / 2 (1+2)
=6 / 2 (3)
= 6 / 6
= 1
or
6 / 2 (1+2)
= 6 / (2+4)
= 6 / (6)
= 1
>>712898013
Why is it so hard to do 1+2? It's literally one of the first things Elementary grade kids learn to.
6/2(1+2)
6/2*3
6/2 = 3
3*3 = 9
× and / are of equal power here.
Fucking retards
3(3)
>>712898013
parenthesis, exponents, Multiplication AND division, add AND subtract. Answer is 9, anon.
>>712883295
>>712883331
>>712883446
>>712883499
>>712883553
>>712883795
>>712883907
>>712884010
>>712884223
>>712884316
>>712884355
>>712884399
>>712884506
>>712884551
>>712884681
>>712884700
>>712884936
>>712885154
>>712885370
>>712885402
>>712885429
>>712885525
>>712885584
>>712885597
>>712886094
>>712886706
>>712887515
>>712888353
>>712888765
>>712888957
>>712889249
>>712889943
>>712890891
>>712894685
>>712895230
>>712896103
retards
>>712898013
Why dont we just rewrite as
6*3^(-1)*3=9
>>712898013
>= 6 / 2 (3)
>= 3/(3)
yes because after you already divided you keep the symbol
>>712898436
*2^(-1)
Not 3^(-1)
>>712897921
That's not the problem OP wrote.
>>712887376
everything is correct until
2(a^2 - ab) = 1 (a^2 - ab)
since a^2 = ab,
a^2 - ab = 0
thus
2(a^2 - ab) = 0
as is
(a^2 - ab) = 0
so the line
2(a^2 - ab) = 1 (a^2 - ab)
2 (0) = 1(0)
0 = 0
>>712898509
How is it not
>>712898013
>= 6 / 2 (3)
>= 3/(3)
common core retard confirmed
Help kill Reddit!
Spread this petition which demands that the CEO of Reddit resign.~`
www.change.org/p/reddit-steve-huffman-should-step-down-as-ceo-of-reddit
>>712898005
The parentheses cannot be removed until you distribute the coefficient.
>>712898509
>>712898509
Yes it is,the one thing they all agree on is that there's an x betweeen 2 and the (.
6/2x(1+2) = 6/2(1+2)
PEMDAS:
Parenthesis
Exponent
Multiplication
Division
Addition
Subtraction
_______________
6/2 (1+2) = ?
1. (1+2) = 3
2. 6/2 = 3
3. 3 x 3 = 9
4. 6/2 (1+2) = 9
>>712898013
The first one there was invalid as fuck, it's coincidental that it leads to the right answer. Good thing you did it three different ways so two of them made sense.
>>712898509
So what do you suggest happens between the 2 and the parenthesis? ..
>>712898330
You added a * where none existed. You need to understand what a coefficient is. 2 was the coefficient of the whole contents of the parentheses.
You get one if you consider 2(2+1) as the entire denominator
9 if you consider it outside and part of the numerator as a result
>>712898436
I'm assuming that shit was satire.
>>712898558
2 is the coefficient of the contents of the parentheses in OP's problem.
>>712898903
Good one
>>712899103
Why so?
6/2=6*2^(-1)
6*2^(-1)*(2+1)=
6*2^(-1)*(3)=
18*2^(-1)=9
Not my fault you suck at math anon
>>712898903
>>712899238
So
6/2(1+2)
6/2+4
6/6
1
Been a while
>>712898614
What the fuck. You know what's in the fucking parenthesis. How hard can it be to add 1 and 2?
>>712883499
the thickest cunt
>>712899486
That is without adding them up, this implies that a constant was also present at either the 1 or 2.
I should get some sleep
>>712899486
... No, First of all you divide before adding; secondly, yes there's an * there.
>>712898624
Wolfram doesn't parse the concept of coefficients. Use mathcad, which does. Wolfram even explains to you exactly how it's parsing what you entered, which is not what you entered, because what you entered has a meaning it's not programmed to understand properly.
6/2(1+2)
1+2 = 3 (Brackets first)
6/2x3
2x3 = 6
6/6
=
1
>>712898722
Who is they? Tell me where you see an x in OP's problem. Has anyone ever explained to you the distributive property or the concept of a coefficient or the notion that algebraic terms are separated by operators and nothing else?
Math is hard.
>>712899959
Why do you read right to left? This isn't a Chinese comic. But I'm glad someone managed to do 1+2 without making it harder than it is.
>>712898724
2 is the coefficient of (1+2) in OP's problem. Your weird interjection of a space there has a clear intent, but it is nonstandard and is not what OP wrote.
>>712900045
I know how to fucking add 1 to 2, which is apparently more than you.
Also, the x is the same as *, I was retarded when writing.
>>712883158
6 / 2 (1 + 2)
PEMDAS
6 / 2(3)
3(3)
9
Also, google greed with me.
>>712885584
Except division IS multiplication. Division is just multiplying one over the divisor.
>>712900143
multiplication usually takes precedence over division
>>712898809
No operation happens. You apply the distributive property. You can think of it as "implied multiplication has a higher precedence than explicit multiplication", but what's really happening is the distributive property is logically prior to arithmetic operations, which is why one is an axiom and the other is not.
>>712900180
No? You have a VERY simple 1+2 in brackets, which mean you do 1+2, which I'm absolutely certain you know how to. And then you go on from then.
>>712899354
You're not solving OP's problem, you're solving a different problem that has an extra operator, and then you're throwing in unnecessary negative exponents to obfuscate it.
Ok, so I was going to say it was 9 when I did 'in my head' but then I reached for my trusty old Casio fx-83GT Plus and input the calculation as written and it gives the answer 1.
So it's 1.
>>712900414
Nah, they're both the same. Once it all has the same priority, just go from left to right.
>>712900143
1+2=3
6/2x3
6/2=3
3x3
=
9
correct?
>>712899486
You deleted parentheses early for reasons unknown, but I assume trolling. Nonetheless you arrive at the correct answer despite miswriting a step.
>>712900642
On the other hand, Google and wolfram alpha says 9.
potato
>>712900669
Yup. Sorry for the Chinese comic comment.
>>712900669
No. I see why you think so but imagine writing it as a fraction and it makes more sense...
In fact just look at this picture I made for you.
>>712900748
Looks like they just distributed the 2
>>712900758
EXACTLY as written? Or with an added *
Google is not a calculator bro its a search engine.
My scientific calculator is more reliable device.
>>712899493
If you want to add the 1 and the 2 first before distributing, you can do that, but the parentheses are still there until you distribute the 2 to the resultant 3.
If that was not understandable, your proposal would be written like this:
y=6/2(1+2)
y=6/2(3)
y=6/(2*3) (distributive property)
y=6/(6)
y=6/6
y=1
>>712883158
9. Left to right, PEMDAS. Fucking retards.
>>712900878
... Which is wrong... Check out >>712885954
>>712901006
Exactly as written, check the thread. It's really not hard to do 1+2, as you started out by doing when you got 9.
>>712901087
Why is it wrong?
Oh right, it's not.
>>712883977
No (you)s for the correct answer.
Bunch of legit retards in here and maybe a couple trolls
>>712899933
Treating coefficients as an implied parenthetical is far from universal. Wolfram is correctly parsing it according to the mathematical conventions of many countries.
>>712883158
what a bunch of fucking retards..
its...
6/2 (1+2)=?
6/2=3
1+2=3
3x3=9
jeezo
>>712900275
I don't think you fucking understood. Tell me where you see a * in the OP's problem. Has anyone ever explained to you the distributive property or the concept of a coefficient or the notion that algebraic terms are separated by operators and nothing else?
>>712888720
And you distribute the coefficient into the parenthesis first you fucking retard
Its 6/6 which is 1
>>712900276
Google does not parse coefficients.
>>712901283
>>712901192
>>712901072
I give up, this place is even more retarded than I thought.
>>712900414
That is incorrect. The answer is 1 because coefficients being distributed into parentheses takes precedence over division, not because multiplication in general does.
ITT: Retards who don't understand mathematics.
>>712901375
Do you want me to video me doing the fucking calculation on my scientific calculator?
Because I fucking will.
>>712901073
For the retards out there, here's how you do it.
>>712895100
>Can't even type the problem correctly
>>712900828
no problem.
Using Pemdas, I thought you had to multiply first as i thought you had to use it in order.
However with times and divide (M and D) you do it left to right in the order they come.
that right?
>>712900758
Google and wolfram alpha do not parse coefficients.
>>712901375
t. D- in High school algebra his senior year
>>712900963
They did, but they then deleted parentheses before adding the contents together.
>>712885954
It's not improper syntax, you just aren't correctly interpreting the syntax. The syntax is algebraic, not arithmetic, and requires an understanding of what a coefficient is.
You wrote a different problem.
>>712901162
You answered incorrectly. Google and wolfram do not solve the problem as written. They solve a different problem because they do not parse coefficients.
>>712901773
You're supposed to delete the parentheses because that part of the problem is already solved.
>>712883158
6/(2(1+2))
=6/6
=1
Remember that 2(1+2) is a separate term.
>>712901485
Again, for the retards who are convinced that it's not 9.
>>712901256
The distributive property is a universal axiom. Wolfram is not correctly parsing it.
Now, it may be common in some countries to not treat what OP wrote as writing a coefficient. I dunno what countries, in the US, when you write 1a, 1 is the coefficient of a. But once you concede that you're talking about a coefficient, you concede that wolfram alpha is wrong.
>>712902181
NO IT IS 9 JUST LIKE MY IQ
>>712901572
>>712901651
>>712901714
>>712902036
Try googling the thing and check out all the videos, websites and forums who discusses it.
>>712901559
Yeah.
Date: 03/24/2005 at 14:03:33
From: wrw
Subject: Order of Operations (multiplication and division)
In telling students to "do multiplication and division IN THE ORDER
THEY APPEAR," it seems they want to always do multiplication first. I
think they follow the PEMDAS rule BY THE LETTER, so they want to
multiply before dividing.
When doing multiplication first, 8 / 2 * 4 = 8 / 8 = 1
When doing multipliation and division from left to right, 8 / 2 * 4 =
4 * 4 = 16
Date: 03/24/2005 at 15:26:39
From: Doctor Peterson
Subject: Re: Order of Operations (multiplication and division)
Hi, WRW.
If you think that students have a tendency to misinterpret the rule,
you're probably right; but I think the reason is that PEMDAS is a
poorly stated version of the rule, and it is easy to misunderstand it
as meaning you do Multiplication, then Division, then Addition, then
Subtraction. That's not what the rule is supposed to mean, but many
students don't get past the letters and see the meaning!
It's really wiser to think of subtraction as addition of the opposite,
and division as multiplication by the reciprocal, and just leave D and
S out of PEMDAS entirely, rather than try to fit them into the rules.
But we make the rules for people who aren't ready to see things in a
mathematically mature way! (I myself prefer to avoid PEMDAS
altogether, and teach the "rules" in a more natural way that leads
into this mature perspective.)
>>712901485
You didn't distribute the coefficient before deleting parentheses.
>>712883158
This is the answer, I promise
streamboobs.com
All you fags saying left to right after adding what's inside the brackets are fucking stupid. The brackets in BEDMAS or parentheses in PEDMAS mean you have to completely expand brackets before doing anything else.
6/2(1+2)=6/2(3)
6/2(3)=6/6
6/6=1
>>712901714
Who?
>>712902091
Not when there's still an operator inside the parentheses it isn't.
Anyone who mentions PEMDAS/BEDMAS or the distributive property can safely be ignored in these threads.
>>712902236
So your calculator doesn't know how to distribute a coefficient and fails to tell you this, what's your point?
6/2(1+2)
BODMAS (order of operations).
The associativity of an operator that is infix relies on OOO.
6/2(3)
Brackets done.
Orders done.
Division ...
6/2 = 3
Multiplication:
3 * 3 = 9
Done.
>>712902667
>>712902423
This guy is dumber than Kanye
>>712902318
Most of those sites do not even remotely address my argument, or even understand what the issue is. At best, they speak of an "occasional convention" that "implied multiplication is higher precedence than explicit", but none of them realize that when you're writing a coefficient, the distributive property is logically prior to order of operations entirely.
>>712902252
Now listen here fucko, US convention is that coefficients are implied multiplication instead of implied parentheticals. You would violate order of operations in US convention by distributing 2 instead of (6/2) like wolfram is showing.
>>712902614
Because the distributive property is not an axiom, I assume?
Also, if you aren't using either distributive property or order of operations for your argument, what in the fuck exactly is left?
>>712902987
I never once mentioned the order of operations.
>>712902987
And yes, the distributive property is not an axiom.
