Are you really this retarded?
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Are you really this retarded?
trick, question... you can't divide by zero..
0,7
>>768660986
There is no trick, you either get it right or you're retarded
I don't expect the average person to be able to solve a problem this hard. For this reason I can't be sure if the fellas above me are doing Le tRoLlz or just plain fucking stupid like the autists they are .fuck its one
>>768661088
>is too scared to solve the math problem for fear of being called retard
well...
6*2/1+2=14 pretty easy one do u hav any more
BODMAS
6/2(1+2) + 9
Fuck your pre 1960's math right off.
It's 9 you fucking retardds
Its fucking 9
>>768660952
6/2(1+2)
6/2(3)
3(3)
9
Y'all serious? It's 1
>>768660952
>retarded
The only retards here are the ones that post this all the time...
is it
(6/2)(2+1)
or 6/(2(2+1))
this is the problem when using รท and why we stopped using it when we go to more advanced maths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Exceptions
Now please stop being retarded.
Multiply out the bracket which results in 2+4 = 6
Then 6/6 = 1
done
you need to apply the chain rule and divide into two
x/2*1+2*2=x/6
then then (6/x)' = 2
2/6 = 3
>>768661269
You can't tell by yourself?
1
>>768660952
You use BODMAS and it's 1. /b/ro explains it >>768661312
>>768660952
NA fags can't do basic maths, it's 1
>>768661326
I do,
its the latter
6 divided by 6 is 1
>>768661381
>not realizing im literally an engineering student
good luck with your hordes of syrian refugees
9 is the answer. Go back to school
6/2=3
1+2= 3
3*3=9
>>768661435
>engineering student
I'm a fully qualified AeroSpace engineer
>>768660952
Seeing as how after solving the paranthesis the question becomes 6 / 2 * 3 = x
then we can see that the question is invalid because multiplication is not higher priority than division. A correct question would be either 6 / (2(1+2)) = x or (6/2)(1+2) = x. we might be able to solve the equation like this: x = 6/(2(1/2)) AND x = (6/2)(1/2). Then we get that x = 3/2
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x+%3D+6%2F(2(1%2F2))+AND+x+%3D+(6%2F2)(1%2F2)
>>768661532
>aerospace engineer
>DOESNT UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER IS 9
guess thats why europoor never been to the moon
>>768661484
it's not you idiot, it's 1. Basic BODMAS. You always multiply out brackets first.
>>768661538
ps. The reason for why divison is not higher priority than multiplication is because we can change the question to 6 * 1/2 * 3 and it's the same thing
>>768661564
You're an imbecile if you can't grasp basic multiplying out brackets.
>>768661538
>this retarded
>can't solve gradeschool math
>>768661565
You real dumb
>>768661564
BODMAS
Brackets
Of
Divide
Multiply
Addition
Subtract
That's the order you use, multiply the brackets out before dividing in order...
Itโs 6
>>768661565
Type Iโm google see what answer
It's 9. See for yourself
>>768661760
typed it into my scientific calculator, gave me the answer of 1. You must include brackets.
BODMAS BTFU yโall were taught a failing Acronym. Stupid fuckers
>>768661760
>believes in jewish programming
Let me guess, you're circumcised.
>>768661808
Nope
>>768661785
>types it wrong
nice troll
>>768661785
brackets in programming does not mean multiply, actually retarded.
Now I understand why plant Operators test are so fuckn simple. People canโt do simple ass math
>>768661785
types it in wrong haha, NA arithmetic
Iโll do it one more time.
6/2(1+2)=
(1+2)= 3
6/2(3)=
6/2=3
3(3)=9
>>768661929
>>768661865
See
>>768661889
Brackets don't means multiplication, so one must use multiplication symbol
>>768660952
6 รท 2 (1 + 2)
= 6 รท ((2 * 1) + (2 * 2))
= 6 รท (2 + 4)
= 6 รท 6
=1
>>768660952
6 divided by 2 multiplied by (1 plus 2)
6 divided by 2 multiplied by 3
3 multiplied by 3
9
>>768662452
>adding in brackets where there are none
top notch trolling you nearly had me you cheeky bugger
answer is 1
(1+2) = 3
2(3) = 2*3 = 6
6 / 6 = 1
>>768662192
so you're saying you need to alter the problem to get desired result?
100 years ago the rule would net 1 as the answer.
Now the rule has changed the answer is 9
>>768662540
Atleast I can trust your math Anon
What the fuck is this BOMDAS shit?
It's PEMDAS.
>>768662583
No I saying it is the very same problem.
2 (1 + 2) means 2 multiplied by (1 + 2)
2 * (1 + 2) means 2 multiplied by (1 + 2)
>>768660952
>6 / 2(1+2)
>6 / 2(1) + 2(2)
>6 / 2 + 4
>6 / 6
>1
Fuck this is scary how many people canโt get this right.
>>768662710
There's a whole bunch of different ways to say it that ultimately arrive at the same meaning
BODMAS = Brackets, "of" (i.e. exponents, it's weird), Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction
PEMDAS = Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction
Division and Multiplication are read left-to-right as they're technically the same operation
Addition and Subtraction are read left-to-right as they're technically the same operation
>>768662800
>2(1 + 2)
>2(1) + 2(2)
Anon you're fucking retarded
>>768662894
Try it nigga
>>768662766
>very same problem
>sneaks in an extra operation symbol
>>768661865
>>768662192
>>768662583
>>768662766
the problem is that you didn't use parentheses, in the case of 2(1 + 2) it doesn't matter because it's the same thing as (2 * (1 + 2))
>>768660952
you have to be a complete moron not to know basic math
it's 9
>>768663138
okay so normally i dont post. its gotten to the point i cant take it anymore. just seeing shit like this makes me want to strangle school teachers world wide. how stupid is this generation?
>>768662944
Let's try your logic, but with a different bracket
50(1*5*1*1)
Normal:
50(5) = 250
Your logic:
50(1) * 50(5) * 50(1) * 50(1)
50 * 250 * 50 * 50
31250000
whewy that's a pretty big difference
>>768663138
>multiplying twice
oh lawd
>>768663138
2(1+2) is not the fucking same as (2 * (1 + 2)) you fucking double nigger
2(1 + 2) is the same as 2 * (1 + 2)
>>768663248
You realise you're using multiplication inside the bracket, not addition, right?
I'll let you in on something: they're not the same thing.
>>768663138
> in the case of 2(1 + 2) it doesn't matter because it's the same thing as (2 * (1 + 2))
yes or you can write it like ( (1+2) + (1+2) )
>>768663309
No shit, that's why the fucking brackets exist and you don't break them apart like a retard just because of the operations inside them
No one has the correct answer ITT which is 5
>>768663411
I'm convinced you're retarded; literally try any example in the format
x(y+z)
where x,y and z are all integers, and the result will equal that of
(x+y)(x+z)
>>768663306
>>768663292
>>768663351
if you're writing code you dumb faggot you faggot you can't write 2(1+3) but 2(1+3) will get multiplied before the division anyway, the problem with anons code is that he didn't put parentheses around it to keep the order of operations the same
btw the answer is 1
>>768663427
lol
in which universe?
6 / 2(1+2) = ?
6 / 2(3) = ?
6 / 6 = 1
Could someone explain how you get 9? Which step is change to get 9?
>>768663555
checked
>>768663517
Just because it works doesn't mean it's right
example: your mother works as a street whore, but it sure ain't right
>>768660952
first parenthesis
>6/2(1+2) = 6/2(3)
division and multiplication are performed in order
>6/2 * 3 = 3 * 3
>3 * 3 = 9
9
This is true using PEMDAS, BEDMAS, BODMAS, or BIDMAS, as all describe the same order of operations.
9 lol
6:2x3
3x3
9
>>768663555
OP's question is not in code though you fucking nigger, it's basic arithmetic and we are not given any reason to assume otherwise
The answer is 9 you triple nigger
>>768663557
6 divided by 2 times 1 plus 2
รท is no correct mathematical operator
>>768663705
i was replying to a nigger who tried proving the answer by using js you dumb fuck CIA MIT twat scroll up buddy
still 1
>>768663756
รท = /
both are correct and readily used/understood
the simply aren't as clear without knowing the order of operations
>>768662841
Multiplication and division is the same tho, as is addition and subtraction
>>768660952
let's assume the answer is 1
>6/2(1+2)=1
first do the easy part
>6/2(3)=1
now divide both sides by 3
>6/2 = 1/3
reduce the fraction of the left
>3 = 1/3
Oh look, the answer CAN'T be 1
Proven by contradiction
Okay I got 9 but I'm retarded and I don't trust any of you so I will never know the answer and go on happy.
>>768664013
2 * (1 + 2) = 6
6 / 6 = 1
multiplication goes first because the M comes before the D in PEMDAS
1
>>768663860
That's literally what I said you unliterate cunt
>>768664096
>multiplication goes first because the M comes before the D in PEMDAS
You best be trolling
Europeans suck at math. That's why we've been to the moon and use the proper measurement system. Euromutts are so behind on the times!
>>768664096
You say that, but I just gave a mathematical prove showing the answer can't be one. Perhaps consider that multiplication/division are performed in the order they appear? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
>>768664013
> now divide both sides by 3
> divide
> multiplies the other side by 3
It's 9 you fucking faggots
>>768660952
https://youtu.be/URcUvFIUIhQ
>>768660952
and people wonder why America elected trump...
>>768664206
since when does 1 * 3 = 1/3 ?
>>768664206
what the fuck are you talking about
>>768664013
burger education seems worthless
>now divide both sides by 3
u fooking wat?
>>768664096
wrong.
IMMA FIRIN MALAYSIA
>>768664243
>>768664254
If he was dividing both sides by 3 (which he shouldn't, he should multiply if he wanted to get rid of the 3), then it would come out to
6/2*3*3 = 1/3
which is
6/18 = 1/3
>>768661312
No lol, you do handle what is inside the parentheses first, but not the multiplication of what it's next to. the MD step goes from left to right, dividing the outside number, then multiplying that with the parentheses
>>768664264
It's called balancing the equation, basic algebra. Want to see what happens with the right answer?
let's assume the answer is 9
>6/2(1+2)=9
first do the easy part
>6/2(3)=9
now divide both sides by 3
>6/2 = 9/3
reduce the fractions
>3 = 3
No contradiction because the answer is 9.
6/2(1+2)
6/2*3
3*3
9
>>768660952
Okay guys and now try talking to girls, you'll see where your lacking
>>768664366
I don't think I've ever seen anybody more wrong than you are right now
>>768661741
2(3) is the same thing as 2*(3). It falls in the Divide Multiply part of BODMAS, get with it
you inbreed rednecks, the correct answer is 1
>>768664232
>>768660952
Except 2 x 3 and 2(3) are two different things.
So 6 / 2(3) = 1, while 6 / 2 x 3 = 9.
But the question is asking for 6 / 2(3) = 1, so the answer is 1.
>>768664366
6/2*3*3 = 3*3*3 = 9
9 =/= 1/3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9h1oqv21Vs&t=128s
>>768664474
>2 x 3 and 2(3) are two different things.
No they aren't, dude.
>>768660952
(1+2) that's 3
6/2 is 3
3 times 3 is 9
It's fucking 9 guys.
>>768661484
U gotta expand dem brackets first boi
>>768664501
Yes, but if we're assuming the answer is 1 (even though it's not) from here:
>>768664013
Then we have to use the same faulty math that was used to assume the answer was 1.
>>768661240
Thank you for a second I thought I was too high. Fucking PEMDAS parentheses exponents multiply divide add subtract
1
>>768660952
6/6
>>768661269
I was taught the order of operations is PEMDAS parentheses exponents multiplication division addition subtraction
So youโd divide by 6 last because the addition is in the parentheses then is multiplied by 2
>>768664366
Let me show you another way!
let's assume the answer is 1
>6/2(1+2)=1
first do the easy part
>6/2(3)=1
now multiply both sides by 2
>6(3)=1*2
reduce the fractions
>18=12
Another contradiction?! It's almost like 1 isn't the answer. But wait, what if we try the same process with 9, like I did here: >>768664389
let's assume the answer is 9
>6/2(1+2)=9
first do the easy part
>6/2(3)=9
now multiply both sides by 2
>6(3)=9*2
multiply
>18 = 18
No contradiction, because the answer is 9
>>768664543
Yes they are. The (3) is still in the parenthesis, while x 3 is not.
>>768664671
tldr; you're a faggot
>>768661313
Hahahaha stupid ass
>>768664566
Faulty math? You mean like not performing division/multiplication in the order they appear as specified by the order of operations? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
I've clearly shown the proof using two standard algebraic methods now: >>768664671
>>768664689
If it helps, feel free you keep your 3 in parenthesis
>>768660952
6/2(2+3)
do parenthesis first so
6/2(3)
now do we say 6 / 6 or 2*3 ??
PEMDAS suggests you would Multiply before you Divide. So 6/6
BUT PEMDAS is really saying Multiplication AND Division, which ever comes first so it should be PE(MD)(AS)
That would make it 6/2 times 3 which is 9.
9
>>768664793
It does, and that is why you do it first.
>>768664689
Putting parentheses around a single number means fucking nothing unless it's next to another number
1 + 2 + 3 is exactly the same as (1) + (2) + (3)
1 * (2) is exactly the same as 1(2) and 1 * 2
>>768664826
Yep you would solve the parenthesis in 2 x (3) first, 2 x 3, all done :D
>>768664805
>PEMDAS suggests you would Multiply before you Divide
PEMDAS is not a fucking god, it's a fucking learning device to help learn the order of operations
the MD and AS are on equal footing
PEDMAS, PEDMSA, PEMDSA, and PEMDAS are all correct
>>768664805
bet you voted berny, like the majority!
>pic related
>>768664904
Thats what I said. Whichever comes first.
>>768664907
>4 in 10
>a majority of Americans
So three of the ten weren't American, have a point?
>>768664735
You best be trolling motherfucker.
Since when does 1*2 = 12?
And if you multiply 6/2(3) by 2, then you get 6/3 which is 2.
>>768664998
typo, should just be 2
either way, 18 =/= 2, is still a proof by contradiction
>>768664943
I should have read the rest of your post, I apologise. The thread is too full of retards who don't understand the order of operations.
>>768664904
It's not that they have equal footing, its that they are the same. There is only Multiplication and Addition. Division it just multiplying by a decimal, as something divided by 4 is just multiplied by .25, and subtracting 4 from something is just adding -4. The division and subtraction symbol just helps retards who cant keep that straight.
/thread
>>768664406
I dont know how every btard cant do maths this guy gets it..
>>768664998
6/2*3*2 = 6/3
the /2 and *2 cancel out
>>768664826
You solve operations WITHIN parentheses first. If there are no more operators within parantheses, the parentheses lose their function. Which is why no one who enjoyed non american education would put parentheses around a single number/variable.
According to the order of operations, division and multiplication have the same precedence, so the correct order is to evaluate from left to right. First take 6 and divide it by 2, and then multiply by 3.
6รท2ร3
= 3ร3
= 9
This gets to the correct answer of 9.
This is without argument the correct answer of how to evaluate this expression according to current usage.
Some people have a different interpretation. And while itโs not the correct answer today, it would have been regarded as the correct answer 100 years ago.
>>768665135
6*3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URcUvFIUIhQ
>>768665135
That's what I was saying. And then once you get to 6/3, it equals 2, so in the person's post it would be:
6/3 = 1*2
2 = 2
>>768665220
where's the fun in that?
>>768664998
(6/2(1+2))x2
(6/2*3)*2
(3*3)*2
9*2
18
>>768665228
This is not a fckn equation, it's a calculation.
>>768665228
You don't see the problem with that?
>6/2*3*2
The /2 and *2 cancel out
First remove the /2
>6*3*2
then remove the *2
>6*3
they have now both been canceled out
>>768665167
So, you're saying PEMDAS is no longer valid...
>>768665060
No shit, but do you really think the retards who think the answer is 1 will be able to wrap their heads around the fact that multiplication and division are technically the same operation?
>>768665242
2(6/2(1+2))
12/2(1+2)
6/(1+2)
6/3
2
>>768665321
Wat, no. Its 9
>>768661785
>no How to unrape sister tab
Into the trash it goes.
>>768660952
Keep this shit on Facebook..
>>768665090
>>768661785
>he had to open several tabs to double check his math before posting
Who's the retard again? You.
>>768665281
He's referring to my proof by contradiction: >>768664013
>>768662894
Distributive property
>/thread
>>768663248
Holy shit I've seen a lot of retards on /b/ but you take the cake.
>>768665509
>Distributive property
Would actually look like this:
>>6/2(1+2)
>>3(1+2)
>>3+6
>>9
>>768665531
>//thread
>>768665592
>6/2(1+2)
>3(1+2)
>3+6
>9
1+2=3 (parentheses denotes first sum)
6รท2=3
3 with 3.
There is no further summation stated to execute in order get any other answer besides 3 and 3.
Not stated in image, but;
3+3=6
3-3=0
3รท3=1
3ร3=9
That's my understanding of number language any way.
>>768665595
>/thread
>>768663640
BIDMAS
6 / 2(1+2) = ?
6 / 2(3) = ?
3(3) = 9
>>768665726
>///thread
>>768665742
But 2(3) = 6
>>768665759
>/thread
It's 17/7 or 2 3/7.
6/21 + 2
3/7 + 2
3/7 + 2/1
3/7 + 14/7
17/7
>>768665799
but 6/2 comes first
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
1+2 is 3
6/2 is 3
3 times 3 is 9
It's 9!
>>768665321
You're especially dumb. Let me clarify this.
2 THINK ABOUT THIS FCKN THING ->(6/2(1+2))<-AND ABOUT THIS ONE TOO, DUMBASS
There. Better?
>>768664667
Were you really not taught that division and multiplication are done left to right (as with addition and subtraction)?
>>768666753
only die hard trolls and true newfafs left, which are you?
Can someone explain what is happening? I see these threads crop up on all the most popular boards and it's always the same. people arguing and calling each other retards.
I thought math was factual, not opinionated.
Do scientists/mathematicians have these kinds of arguments too?
>>768666789
I just like these threads. I know there's a million a day, but explaining this shit to retards (Americans) makes me happy. I prefer the Monty Hall one and the portal one better though.
>>768666933
I'm in the same boat but an American explaining it to the stupid Brits. I like using the proof by contradiction method: >>768664013
>>768667001
I thought Brits were tough bodmas rather than pemdas.
>>768667245
It's all the same, like I explained here: >>768663694
>>768667315
I know they're all the same, it's just that I wouldn't expect a Brit to think that multiplication comes before division because they're taught bodmas. If anything I'd expect them to think division is always done before multiplication.
the answer is three
t. an intellectual
>>768667545
>]
How the fck do you actually get to this???
It's 1
suck my fucking dick
>>768665090
Surprise surprise, the WoW player is retarded
3^2
>>768660952
3(3)
>>768666795
What is happening is different methods of how to solve a math problem are conflicting. There are multiple ways to solve most mathematical situations, and different locations in the world learn it a different way.
>>768666795
all the time Jimbo
>>768660952
Specify the problem please.
Do you want 6/(2(1+2))
or do you want (6/2)(1+3).
This is literally why brackets exist in math.
>>768660952
7
Distruped property
6/2+4
3+4
>>768667967
>can't tell where the brackets are
retard
>>768666795
No. Because those people are actually smart. No one argues the math, they argue the application of it.
>>768667967
The brackets aren't misplaced. If you can't understand, you *might* have some problems.
>>768660952
Yes, next question
>>768666795
>Do scientists/mathematicians have these kinds of arguments too?
Nope. It's really rare that scientists and engineers have issues with notation. We learn to deal with it, bit this is not the case. There's only one way to solve this. The point is that it's written in an ambiguous way that most people that are not really used to math fail. That's only why the รท is not used and divisions are alwaus noted as fractions.
As a fraction it should be noted like 6(2+1) / 2
>>768668005
ah yes
distruped property how could I forget
>>768660952
AN times E equals ABN A=1 B=5 E=3 N=0
True or false
>>768660952
It ultimately depends on whether you think Multiplication should occur before division, i.e. whether you interpret รท2(1+2) to mean รท(2(1+2). PEMDAS seems to create that impression if not taught properly
>>768668356
>opinion
>math
>>768668350
AN = 0
AN * E = 0
ABN = 0
0 = 0
or
AN = 10
AN * E = 30
ABN = 150
30 =/= 150
>>768668520
>Dogmatism
>Smart
It's fucking 1
>>768668900
proof its not >>768664013
or are proofs too hard for you?
the jews speak
>>768669130
Ho weird, I don't have the same result.
+ >>768664013
>>768661177
>Tfw retarded
>>768661484
Imagine beign this retarded
>>768664013
Except 6/2(3) implies that we are multiplying the two in the denominator by three, rather than the whole fraction, like it would be if we said (6/2)(3).
>>768669130
My jews are better at math
>>768669299
That's because basic algebra alludes you: >>768664389
>>768669530
In case someone tried to make that point I also proved it by factoring out the 2: >>768664671
>>768669531
>puts the wrong fucking equation into calculator
>alludes
I really, really hope you're trolling
>>768669569
I really really hope you know the answer isn't 99 either way
>>768669560
>>768664671
>multiply both sides by two
You keep mixing up your functions bud
>>768669606
I figured you hit the equals button twice cause google is always putting your new answer in without getting rid of the old answer.
>>768669560
Here's my favorite
>6/2(1+2)=1
>6/2(3) = 1
now divide both sides by 6
>1/2(3)=1/6
now multiple both sides by 2(3)
>1=1/6*2(3)
>1=2/18
>1=1/9
Gosh that still doesn't seem right, I wonder what the problem could be?!
>>768660952
try to write the "divided by 2" as "multiply by 1/2" and u will see it is 9.
>>768669758
That just changes the answer to 0 for me. I edited the HTML like the guy I was replying to did.
Can't believe you all are that stupid. In Germany any 14 y o can solve this easy shit.
Idiocracy 2k18
>>768669672
Wait, sorry. You switched from 6/3 to 6x3 in between steps two and three in the first problem.
>>768669843
it was always *3
the / was from the 2
I got rid of the /2 by multiplying both sides by 2
>>768664586
Its P E MD AS. Multiplication and division should be considered the same priority. You just read left-to-right from that point on
>>768669912
Stupid af you moron
>>768670045
I've done it two other was with the same result:
>>768669793
>>768664013
>>768668262
>We
>>768670058
>wrong
>>768661565
>You always multiply the brackets first
>Problem clearly states to use fucking addition within the brackets
are you blind?
>>768670167
nope.
>>768670175
To be fair, distribution works too: >>768665623
>>768670167
sec i make another
>>768660952
if you aren't using fractional notation you are bad at math
>>768660952
PEMDAS
>>768660952
6 divided by 2(1+2)=
6 divided by 2+4=
3+4 = 7
????
Division before addition, and that take away the "()" method is middle school shit
>>768670316
How the fuck did you get g as an answer when there were no variables present? It should be illegal to be that retarded.
>>768670705
1+2 is kindergarten shit, but even that's too hard for some people it seems
>>768660952
the correct answer is 1
6/2(1+2)=
6/(2+4)=
6/6=1
>>768670853
Wrong.
>>768670742
either bad troll or just rly stupid. in case u are stupid: g = 9
>>768662800
Division before addition?
7
>>768660952
It's unambiguously 9.
>>768660952
1 + 2 = 3
6 / 2 = 3
3 * 3 = 9
Bout tree fiddy
Americans got taught wrong.
>>768671021
nope... the (1+2) gets multiplied by 2 before they are added... 2(1+2) becomes (2+4) which equals 6. 6/6=1
>>768671228
Wrong.
>>768660952
The answer is 5
>>768660952
More proof American education is shit.
>>768671274
okay if you think so... im not gonna waste any more of my time explaining basic math
>>768671228
You always start with the bracket, so it's:
6:2*(3)
After that you start from left:
3*(3)
Then:
9
There is no way to even debate about this shit.
The third edition of Mechanics by Landau and Lifshitz contains expressions such as hPz/2ฯ (p. 22), and the first volume of the Feynman Lectures contains expressions such as 1/2โN (p. 6โ7). In both books these expressions are written with the convention that the solidus is evaluated last.
Are you all saying Feynman is wrong??
>>768671327
>basic math
like this proof by contradiction >>768664013
>>768671228
correct
>>768664096
Multiplying And dividing go at the same time, from left to right. Whichever comes first
Does it help when written out like this:
P
E
MD
AS
>>768660952
no, the author of the question is for writing the problem in an ambiguous fashion
>>768660952
it's 9
1+2 = 3
6/2 = 3
3^2 = 9
come on
>>768671550
this
>>768671550
>can't do math
>blames the problem
are you 12?
>>768671650
it's not ambiguous, the division operator is well defined. 6 / 2 = 6 * 0.5. Go ahead, replace it and see what you get.
>>768671750
>6/2(1+2)
>6*0.5(1+2)
>6*(0.5+1)
>6*1.5
>9
magic
>>768660952
1, multiply before divide
>>768671915
or just turn division into multiplication so you don't mess up your order of operations like a noob >>768671900
and don't forget to verify with a proof by contradiction that you're actually retarded >>768664013
>>768671915
But that's not how it works you fucking retard
>>768671750
it is ambiguous. it's why we don't use a division symbol in higher math. the answer is 9 of course, but the question is retarded to begin with. no sane mathematician would write an expression like this
>>768664671
Nice try
>Set equal to 1
6/2(1+2) = 1
>"First do the easy part"
6/2(3) = 1
>You do NOT multiply both sides by 2. You multiply both sides by 2(3)
6 = 1*2(3)
6 = 6
>No contradiction, because the answer is 1
>>768671750
There wouldn't be this much argument around it if it wasn't ambiguous you fucking dolt
>>768671987
>we don't use a division symbol in higher math
citation needed, we use it in discrete mathematics constantly at my uni
>>768671995
Or you could try any other method and see you're wrong: >>768669793, >>768664671
>>768672086
Or the people here are just idiots
>>768664158
LOL
>>768672101
you're right, i'm wrong in saying its not used at all but its not nearly as common as using a fraction and proper parentheses to make the expression you're trying to write as clear as possible
Use fucking pemdas yall
>P
you always solve whats in the parentheses first
1+2=3
>E
no exponents here
>MD
6/2 = 3, 3 x 3 = 9
you always go left to right
>AS
Nothing to see here
>>9
>>768671505
This isn't a proof by contradiction. The order of operations is just a standard. You could use brackets instead of the order of operations but that gets anoying.
>>768672396
It's the simplest proof by contradiction you'll ever see, but it still is one. Sad anyone would need it right? In math we would usually call this issue trivial.
>>768660952
>$0.00? why??!!!?????
>>768672235
>less common
That's the idea. So is using the order of operations in daily life. Now you see why it stumps people - not because it's ambiguous, but because they are ignorant (or want to troll).
>>768671444
Nice trips
So why exactly don't you multiply the brackets with the "2" first before dividing it by 6?
>>768660952
6/2(1+2) = 6/2(3) = 3(3) = 9
BIMDAS BODMAS WATEVER, Prio is brackets then left to right for the order of operation is Multiply or Divide from LEFT TO RIGHT!!!! so answer is 9 :) also 0/10 for bait.
