6/2(1+2) =

[Gooner]

Got this on FB yesterday.
I go with answer of 9 but the other side goes with 1. In fact friends and family are split almost even. What do you reckon....and why please.

[Barefoot Dave]

Gooner, BODMAS has superceeded BOMDAS, therefore;
6/2(1+2)= 6/2 (3)= 3(3)= 9
Congrats, Dave.

[Bushie]

hard to evaluate as it could go either way depending on what is intended

6/2(1+2) could really be 6/{2(1+2)} in which case 1 would be the answer. A bit more difficult to accurately represent on a single typed line

Martyn

[101RRS]

As written 6/2(1+2) following the rules of maths is the same as writing it

6 divided by 2 multiplied by 3 = 9

As written it is not 6 divided 6=1 for this to happen the original equation would have to be as mentioned above
6/(2(1+2))

Garry

[uninformed]

Bushie, you have added extra brackets which change the whole equation....as it stands from the original, id be going with 9

[mick88]

Answer is 9

Always remember BODMAS!
Order of operation!

Division and Multiplication always before Addition and Subtraction!


So what does 3 + 2 x 2 =


Cheers, Mick

[Eevo]

answer is 1

6/2(1+2)
6/(2+4)
6/6
1

[uninformed]

answer is 1

6/2(1+2)
6/(2+4)
6/6
1

sorry mate, if BODMAS is the go, its brackets first, which would be 1+2 =3, then divison, which is 6/2 = 3, then those 2 are multiplied, as the rule of outside a bracket to inside one is multiplied (multiplied comes after divide in BODMAS)...so 3x3 is 9

Mick id say yours is 7

[Blknight.aus]

BIMDAS= Brackets, Indecies, Multiplication/Divisons, Additions/Subtractions

6/2(1+2)= 6/2(3)= 3(3)= 3*3= 9

If you use the literal version of BIMDAS without allowing for the fact that multiplication and devision along with addition and subtraction occur as you read them from left to right

you get

6/2(1+2)= (6/2(3)= 6/2*3= 6/6=1

thats wrong...

heres the technical version of it (which is the way handycalc, google calc, and my spread sheet answer it)

6/2(1+2)= (6/2)*(1+2)=(3)*(3)=9

I suspect that someone on face book, most likely an american, got a maths question wrong and is asshurt about it. (or is trolling an intelectual bunfight)

[mick88]

sorry mate, if BODMAS is the go, its brackets first, which would be 1+2 =3, then divison, which is 6/2 = 3, then those 2 are multiplied, as the rule of outside a bracket to inside one is multiplied (multiplied comes after divide in BODMAS)...so 3x3 is 9

Mick id say yours is 7


Correct! :D


Cheers, Mick.

[Eevo]

sorry mate, if BODMAS is the go, its brackets first, which would be 1+2 =3, then divison, which is 6/2 = 3, then those 2 are multiplied, as the rule of outside a bracket to inside one is multiplied (multiplied comes after divide in BODMAS)...so 3x3 is 9

Mick id say yours is 7

you need to expand the brackets first.

if (1+2) was on the top line, it should be written

6(1+2)/2

[sheerluck]

It's definitely BIMDAS all the way. 9 is the answer you're looking for.

Unless you were looking to just agree with your other half for a quiet life, then the answer is one. :D

[uninformed]

you need to expand the brackets first.

if (1+2) was on the top line, it should be written

6(1+2)/2

Please explain more, what do you mean by expand? isnt doing the equation inside the bracket the first thing??

there is no top line??? and why are you saying if there was, it should be written in a single line??

[Bigbjorn]

My you beaut Hewlett Packard calculator says the answer is 9

[Eevo]

Please explain more, what do you mean by expand? isnt doing the equation inside the bracket the first thing??

i was taught at uni to expand the brackets first
and btw, a question should never be written like this due to its ambiguity.




Some people read the equation as:

(6÷2)(1+2) in which case the answer is 9.

Some read the equation as:

6÷(2(1+2)) in which case the answer is 1.

[Bushie]

Bushie, you have added extra brackets which change the whole equation....as it stands from the original, id be going with 9

my original work was 9. I added the brackets to show how others may interpret it especially if it was hand written and the 2(1+2) had been written below the divisor bar.

Martyn

[Eevo]

6
------
2(1+2)


or



6
-- (1+2)
2

[Eevo]

the 2 is "attached" to the (2+1)
and the brackets must be expanded first.
expanding does not remove the brackets.


brackets outrank division
The general consensus among "math" people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other (like a bracket), rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations

[rick130]

[snip]

Some read the equation as:

6÷(2(1+2)) in which case the answer is 1.

That's how I read and answered it. (not that means anything :D)

[Eevo]

question..


a/bc


Is it
a
---
cb


or is it
ac
--
b

?

[uninformed]

im sorry, what im finding confusing is the statements of whats and ifs....its a simple single line equation that was posted on facebook, not hand written and not with a top or bottom line.

Since this is the case I would take the "/" as divison just for the 6 and 2. They could have written it like Eevo has which would change things depending on which one.

Eevo, what is your definition of expanding the brackets?

is it a case of the equation has been written incorrectly? Surely there are rules in Maths to avoid all the ambiguity?

[uninformed]

question..


a/bc


Is it
a
---
cb


or is it
ac
--
b

?

if BODMAS rules, then I would take it as A divided by B then mulitplied by C, only because divide comes before multiply.

Again, is it a incorrect written equation, just to cause ambiguity?

[Eevo]

If the author had truly intended the (1+2) to be multiplied, the equation would have been written 6(1+2)/2.

QED

:)

[Eevo]

if BODMAS rules, then I would take it as A divided by B then mulitplied by C, only because divide comes before multiply.
i dont agree. a/bc always means

a
--
bc



Again, is it a incorrect written equation, just to cause ambiguity?
probably.
its a good troll, haha

[uninformed]

hey i dont have a clue, thats why i just enrolled at TAFE to do ATP....first subject is basic Maths, so I can do pure Maths and then Physics.

[Disco44]

After reading all this thread I'm definitely pleased that I was educated over 50 years ago when life was simple and not full of bull**** that it is now.What ever happened to the three R's.It looks like everyone now-a-days is educated to the standard of what was called in my day "Assistant Pilot on The Moon Rocket"
John.

[Eevo]

its a simple single line equation that was posted on facebook, not hand written and not with a top or bottom line.
the question is written badly and ambiguous.





Since this is the case I would take the "/" as divison just for the 6 and 2. They could have written it like Eevo has which would change things depending on which one. but the 2 belongs to the (1+2)




Eevo, what is your definition of expanding the brackets?

hard to explain on a forum, and expanding doesnt need to be done, but often easier to solve equations.

y = 2(1+3)
y = (2 + 6)
y = 8

as i said, you dont need to expand. however the 2 must be multiplied agasint the inside of the brackets first.
y = 2(1+3)
y = 2(4)
y = 8




is it a case of the equation has been written incorrectly? Surely there are rules in Maths to avoid all the ambiguity?

yes, depending on what the author wanted.
If the author had truly intended the (1+2) to be multiplied, the equation would have been written 6(1+2)/2.

hence i think the answer is 1.

[Eevo]

[FONT="Arial"]What ever happened to the three R'sreduce, reuse, recycle?

[uninformed]

Eevo, are you using BOMDAS? if so what is your take on someone saying that BODMAS now superceeds this? Does it change anything?

[Gooner]

I'm with John (disco44) - give me the simple days when stuff was just right or just wrong.
I'm going to tell my mouthy 16 year old that the forum (mostly) reckons I'm right and her and her 88000 FB friends are wrong. That should go well.

[Ralph1Malph]

a question should never be written like this due to its ambiguity.

Yup,
In many professional and technical papers we are now encouraged to scrutiny equations and write them in 'long' format if they are likely to become ambiguous. It's quite acceptable now in professional papers to do this. Takes some of the 'I'm a math smarty' out of the paper but less confusion for those facebook genners reading it.:p

Ralph

BTW the answer you seek is.....9

[Eevo]

Eevo, are you using BOMDAS? if so what is your take on someone saying that BODMAS now superceeds this? Does it change anything?
at school i was taught BODMAS

and bodmas still applies.
and as i said earlier, "The general consensus among "math" people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other (like a bracket), rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations"

so 6/2x(1+2) is different to 6/2(1+2)
with "x" being the multiplier symbol.

[Eevo]

In many professional and technical papers we are now encouraged to scrutiny equations and write them in 'long' format if they are likely to become ambiguous. It's quite acceptable now in professional papers to do this. absolutely. a question like this would never be in a uni math exam. and if it was, credit would be given for both answers, or the question removed from the grading.




BTW the answer you seek is.....9
and answer is in your username my friend

[mick88]

absolutely. a question like this would never be in a uni math exam. and if it was, credit would be given for both answers, or the question removed from the grading.



and answer is in your username my friend


So Eevo are you saying both answers are correct?


Cheers, Mick

[Lionelgee]

G'day All,

This is really three sums.

The way to approach it is to do whatever has to be done in the brackets first. So (1+2) = (3)...... The answer to the first sum has to stay within the brackets ... 6/2(3)=

The second sum involves the part of the question not within the brackets so it is 6/2 or 6 divided by 2 = 3

So the result at the end of the second sum is written up as 3(3)

The third sum is performed to get rid of the brackets. To do this the opposite of what function was done to get the second answer is performed on the sum. To recap - in sum 6/2 which is 6 is divided by 2 to get 3

So the opposite of divide is to multiply so to get rid of the bracket out of the equation it becomes 3 x 3 = 9

The answer is 9 - now that I have stopped reliving nightmares of NSW Year 12 maths exams I will go and curl up somewhere and hide.

OMG now I am having flashbacks about how to do quadratic equations - Noooooooo

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Eevo]

So Eevo are you saying both answers are correct?

I think one is correct but Given the ambiguity of the question, yes.

[Eevo]

So the result at the end of the second sum is written up as 3(3)


No, you have done a division before finishing brackets.
Must finish brackets first.

[uninformed]

No, you have done a division before finishing brackets.
Must finish brackets first.

ok, so because there is no symbol between the number directly before the brackets, it becomes part of the bracket equation? and therefore the division symbol is the one seperating the 2 parts of the equation?

[mike_ie]

First Rule of Operators: PIDMAS

Parentheses - working from most deeply nested outwards.
Indices - powers
Division
Multiplication
Addition
Subtraction

Division and multiplication have equal priority
Addition and subtraction have equal priority

So apply it alone to the equation 6/2(1+2) and we have two possible outcomes, as division and multiplication have equal priority:

6/(2(1+2))
=6/(2(3))
=6/(6)
=1

or...

6÷2(1+2)
= 6÷2(3)
= 6÷2(1+2)
= 3(3)
= 9

PIDMAS on its own applies equal weight to either equation, so which is correct?

Second Rule of Operators: Work from left to right.

In a case such as this, where there are both multipliers and divisors of equal weight, the rule for determining which to evaluate first is to do it from left to right.

So 6/2(1+2) = 6/2×(3) = 3×3 = 9


It's not the equation that's ambiguous, but rather peoples understanding of mathematical rules. Though as Eevo pointed out, most people would add parenthesis to remove any chance of confusion.

[mick88]

There is no ambiguity and it does not matter if it were or were not in a university exam.
You just follow BEDMAS/BODMAS mathematical rule which is the same for primary school or university levels.
Mathematics is absolute, it does not have the options of two answers, hence the reason for formulae.


Cheers, Mick

[87County]

There is no ambiguity, the answer is definitely 1.

The number outside the bracket would be entered as 3 not 6/2 if there was any other intention ( assuming, of course, that the writer had common sense)

[Eevo]

ok, so because there is no symbol between the number directly before the brackets, it becomes part of the bracket equation?
yes!

[Eevo]

Mathematics is absolute, it does not have the options of two answers, hence the reason for formulae.

nope.
squareroot of 9, has two answers.


plus if it was absolute, we would have solved all the maths problems out there.

[uninformed]

ok, here is another equation for you "who the **** am I ment to believe?" :(

[rick130]

ok, here is another equation for you "who the **** am I ment to believe?" :(


Me ! :D


Bwahahahahahaha :twisted:

[Eevo]

other maths problems:

Theorem. A cat has nine tails.

Proof. No cat has eight tails. Since one cat has one more tail than no cat, it must have nine tails.

[mike_ie]

yes!

Um, no...?

You're implying that explicit multipliers carry less weight than implicit multipliers, which is not the case...

[Eevo]

Um, no...?

You're implying that explicit multipliers carry less weight than implicit multipliers, which is not the case...

it is most certainly the case.

as i said earlier,
The general consensus among "math" people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (also known as implicit multipliers) (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other (like a bracket), rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations

ive never known it to be otherwise

[vnx205]

so 6/2x(1+2) is different to 6/2(1+2)
with "x" being the multiplier symbol.

Since the issues of correctness, conventions and ambiguity have arisen, I could probably be excused for pointing out that
so 6/2x(1+2) is different to 6/2(1+2)
should read
so 6/2x(1+2) is different from 6/2(1+2)

similar to

different from

:D:D:D

[Eevo]

Since the issues of correctness, conventions and ambiguity have arisen, I could probably be excused for pointing out that
so 6/2x(1+2) is different to 6/2(1+2)
should read
so 6/2x(1+2) is different from 6/2(1+2)

similar to

different from

:D:D:D

whoah. brain overload.
im confused

no, i think im correct
"equation a is different to equation b"

"equation a is different from equation b" doesnt feel right

[Lionelgee]

No, you have done a division before finishing brackets.
Must finish brackets first.

The sum within the brackets was done as the first step (1+2)
The answer to this sum remains isolated as (3) right up until the last part of the equation

Then the second step is the division 6/2 = 3

Nothing can be done with the result of the first sum which is (3) until after the brackets are removed.
3(3)

To do this 3 x 3 = 9



The original purpose which was not mentioned in the thread is to find "x"

The original sum should have been written 6/2(1 + 2) = x

Answer to Step One 6/2(3) = x
Answer to Step Two 3(3) = x
Answer to Step Three x = 3 multiplied by 3
x = 9

You will notice that until the last step of the equation the x was always on the right-hand side of the = sign and it is the unknown quantity
To make x the known quantity the amount in brackets has to be the reverse power of whatever was done in the sum located to the left of the brackets in this case 6/2 = 3 so the equation at this stage looks 3(3) = x
The opposite of divide is multiply so for x to become a known quantity 3(3) = x becomes x = 3 multiplied by 3

x = 9

[Eevo]

lionelgee: im sorry but to quote Wolfgang Pauli

"It is not even wrong"

[mike_ie]

it is most certainly the case.

as i said earlier,
The general consensus among "math" people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (also known as implicit multipliers) (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other (like a bracket), rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations

ive never known it to be otherwise

Yes, I can use google too (http://www.google.com.au/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=hp&qe=bXVsdGlwbGljYXRpb24gYnkganU&qesig=5lGpyD1zsKekqUXb-huSlw&pkc=AFgZ2tnvl3s_VxxmWrqtXK7J76f6u5R9vb5gCywd8AJyO2 gMK6ElG2VsADmC-mQqvlGcbZksueXimykPmZ6HARqty08euai0Pg&cp=20&gs_id=2d&xhr=t&q=multiplication+by+juxtaposition&pf=p&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=multiplication+by+ju&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.dGY&fp=57ca976b3479f708&biw=1173&bih=470), but the part that you are omitting is that it it's a convention used by some, rather than an explicit rule of mathematics. Which is also why programming languages don't recognise it.

[Eevo]

but the part that you are omitting is that it it's a convention used by some, rather than an explicit rule of mathematics. Which is also why programming languages don't recognise it.

so your saying programming languages > maths rules ?
programming can be changed. your point is trivial (no pun intended)
programmers are just wannabe mathematician, haha. im kidding

the convention is used by most. actually ive never seen it any other way.
granted my degree is in physics, not maths, although physics uses maths and i did maths through 2nd year uni, it might be a physics convention, which i would be willing to accept as the exception, but i dont think that is the case.

[vnx205]

.... ....
"equation a is different from equation b" doesnt feel right

Maybe it doesn't feel right, but it is grammatically correct. :)

[Eevo]

Maybe it doesn't feel right, but it is grammatically correct. :)
right
you do the english
i'll do the maths

[mike_ie]

so your saying programming languages > maths rules ?
programming can be changed. your point is trivial (no pun intended)
programmers are just wannabe mathematician, haha. im kidding


No. I'm saying that while people may follow conventions, programming languages obey unambiguous mathematical rules, and I'd find it hard to imagine that in the 70-odd years that modern computer programming has been around, that it hasn't been queried. Or to put it another way, you're stating that convention used by some = rule, which by definition is not the case.

The term "multiplication by juxtaposition" simply means that by positioning two values side by side, that multiplication is implied. Nowhere does it state that implicit multiplication takes precedence over explicit - even qualified mathematicians agree that while it may be convention for some, that it is far from being the rule.

[vnx205]

right
you do the english
i'll do the maths

That suits me. :D

[Eevo]

Yes, I can use google too (http://www.google.com.au/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=hp&qe=bXVsdGlwbGljYXRpb24gYnkganU&qesig=5lGpyD1zsKekqUXb-huSlw&pkc=AFgZ2tnvl3s_VxxmWrqtXK7J76f6u5R9vb5gCywd8AJyO2 gMK6ElG2VsADmC-mQqvlGcbZksueXimykPmZ6HARqty08euai0Pg&cp=20&gs_id=2d&xhr=t&q=multiplication+by+juxtaposition&pf=p&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=multiplication+by+ju&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.dGY&fp=57ca976b3479f708&biw=1173&bih=470),
one of your google links explains it well
Order of arithmetic operations; in particular, the 48/2(9+3) question. (http://math.berkeley.edu/~gbergman/misc/numbers/ord_ops.html)

Why is there no fixed convention for interpreting expressions such as a/bc ? I think that one reason is that historically, fractions were written with a horizontal line between the numerator and denominator. When one writes the above expression that way, one either puts bc under the horizontal line, making that whole product the denominator, or one just makes b the denominator and puts c after the fraction. Either way, the meaning is clear from the way the expression is written. The use of the slant in writing fractions is convenient in not creating extra-high lines of text; but for that convenience, we pay the price of losing the distinction that came from how the terms were arranged horizontally and vertically.


so it comes down to the way each person was educated.

[Eevo]

No. I'm saying that while people may follow conventions, programming languages obey unambiguous mathematical rules, and I'd find it hard to imagine that in the 70-odd years that modern computer programming has been around, that it hasn't been queried. Or to put it another way, you're stating that convention used by some = rule, which by definition is not the case.
with the original equation being ambiguous.



The term "multiplication by juxtaposition" simply means that by positioning two values side by side, that multiplication is implied. Nowhere does it state that implicit multiplication takes precedence over explicit - even qualified mathematicians agree that while it may be convention for some, that it is far from being the rule.
in my education, implicit multiplication has always takes precedence over explicit multiplication.

so this comes down to education. and which way people are taught.
i've been taught one way. everything around me in my education has used that same convention.

its similar to the question, what colour is a tennis ball. yellow or green.
depends on how you were raised it might be yellow or green.



this, leads me to believe we are now at a trivial endpoint, how can further discussion be useful?

btw, tennis balls are yellow

[mike_ie]

Actually....

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/01/1019.jpg

;)

[Eevo]

must be a factory reject cause they one looks orange

[Lionelgee]

lionelgee: im sorry but to quote Wolfgang Pauli

"It is not even wrong"


For those who believe no proof is necessary
To those who do not believe no proof is possible :twisted:

[mick88]

Actually....

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/01/1019.jpg

;)


And Land Rovers can be green or yellow!

Cheers, Mick.

[Eevo]

For those who believe no proof is necessary
To those who do not believe no proof is possible :twisted:

hmm. interesting. ive only heard that quote when talking about god.

[Lionelgee]

hmm. interesting. ive only heard that quote when talking about god. I also quote Charlie Brown & Peanuts especially if it applies to a specific situation.


Oh by the way here is some more proof
Accessed 12th January 2012
SQL SERVER – Basic Calculation and PEMDAS Order of Operation « SQL Server Journey with SQL Authority (http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2012/09/25/sql-server-basic-calculation-and-pemdas-order-of-operation)

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Eevo]

I also quote Charlie Brown & Peanuts especially if it applies to a specific situation.


Oh by the way here is some more proof
Accessed 12th January 2012
SQL SERVER – Basic Calculation and PEMDAS Order of Operation « SQL Server Journey with SQL Authority (http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2012/09/25/sql-server-basic-calculation-and-pemdas-order-of-operation)

another reason to hate sql (i use it at work :( )
i prefer to quote calvin & hobbes
he's life lessons are more meaningful


Hobbes: What's that cereal you're eating?
Calvin: It's my new favorite, "Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs". Have a taste.
Hobbes: Thank you. (clutching throat) MFFPBTH!!!!! S-Sw-Sw SWEET!!!!!!!!!
Calvin: Actually, they're kinda bland till you scoop sugar on 'em.


Calvin: The secret to happiness is short-term, stupid self-interest!

Calvin: The problem with people is that they don't look at the big picture. Eventually, we're each going to die, our species will go extinct, the sun will explode, and the universe will collapse. Existence isn't only temporary, it's pointless! We're all doomed, and worse, nothing matters!


damm, im gonna spend all night reading these

[Blknight.aus]

Nutshelling


yes!
No.

other maths problems:

Statement. A cat has nine tails.

Theory. No cat has eight tails. Since one cat has one more tail than no cat, it must have nine tails.
Proof: ?

I fixed it in blue for you, just need you to prove your theory


Maybe it doesn't feel right, but it is grammatically correct. :)
you get Ron involved in this and I will condem you to type correcting and spell checking all of my posts, in chronological and alphabetical order including sequencing them by relevance of HHGTTG/Red Dwarf/DR Who/Farscape and Firefly references.


I also quote Charlie Brown & Peanuts especially if it applies to a specific situation.


Oh by the way here is some more proof
Accessed 12th January 2012
SQL SERVER – Basic Calculation and PEMDAS Order of Operation « SQL Server Journey with SQL Authority (http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2012/09/25/sql-server-basic-calculation-and-pemdas-order-of-operation)

Kind Regards
Lionel

I'm backing ^ that, all the other threads that indicate similarly and the supported out come that the unambiguously written question of 6/2(1+2) equals 9

[Eevo]

I fixed it in blue for you, just need you to prove your theory
have you seen an 8 tailed cat?
QED :D



all the other threads that indicate similarly and the supported out come that the unambiguously written question of 6/2(1+2) equals 9
ive seen plenty of threads for both sides. going round in (x−h)^2+(y−k)^2=r^2 now

[Ferret]

answer is 1

Wolfram 'Mathematica' says it's 9 also

[Blknight.aus]

have you seen an 8 tailed cat?
QED :D



Yes, Ive also seen 3,5,7 and 9.

[Lionelgee]

another reason to hate sql (i use it at work :( )
i prefer to quote calvin & hobbes
he's life lessons are more meaningful


Hobbes: What's that cereal you're eating?
Calvin: It's my new favorite, "Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs". Have a taste.
Hobbes: Thank you. (clutching throat) MFFPBTH!!!!! S-Sw-Sw SWEET!!!!!!!!!
Calvin: Actually, they're kinda bland till you scoop sugar on 'em.


Calvin: The secret to happiness is short-term, stupid self-interest!

Calvin: The problem with people is that they don't look at the big picture. Eventually, we're each going to die, our species will go extinct, the sun will explode, and the universe will collapse. Existence isn't only temporary, it's pointless! We're all doomed, and worse, nothing matters!


damm, im gonna spend all night reading these

G'day Eevo,

I will introduce a statement that is quoted as matching French writer Voltaire, beliefs "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It may not actually have been written by Voltaire.

According to Who said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? (http://ask.yahoo.com/20030331.html) the source comes from The Friends of Voltaire, written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall and published in 1906 under the pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre. Hall said that she paraphrased Voltaire's words in his "Treatise on Toleration.

Gee who would have thought that we would be writing about mathematics, Charlie Brown, Calvin and Hobbs and Voltaire on a Land Rover forum.

To conclude I will use some informally borrow from Homer Simpson, " MMMMMMMmmmm Land Rovers" :)

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Eevo]

Wolfram 'Mathematica' says it's 9 also
so if i write a program and i put in the equation and it comes out with 42, does that make it correct? no.

yes wolfram is respected, but its only as good as its programmer. if that programmer uses different convention, who am i to argue with him/her?

[Eevo]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

regardless of who said it, a great quote.

goodnight!

[Eevo]

Yes, Ive also seen 3,5,7 and 9.

if you have already seen a 9 tailed cat, why are we having this conversation?
any why didnt you take a picture?

[Ferret]

yes wolfram is respected, but its only as good as its programmer. if that programmer uses different convention, who am i to argue with him/her?

So the guys who slapped up 'SQL Sever' used the wrong convention and the guys who knocked together 'Mathematica' used the wrong convention?

Yes, I suppose a convention is a just a convention and in that sense it is arbitrary. However, a fair bit of the worlds commerce (SQL server) and science (Mathematica) depends on getting basic thing such as the 'order of precedence' universally standardised so everybody plays by the same rules.

If you still reckon the answer is 1, good for you but your out of step with the standard convention recognised around the world.

[mikehzz]

As it is written, the answer is 9. Having implicit multiplication taking precedence over normal multiplication is idiotic nonsense that leads to ambiguity in my opinion. Implicit multiplication is just shorthand and that is all. You are required to imagine the multiplication sign as being there and as such it has the same precedence as division so is read from left to right.

Demonstrated here-
6/2(3)=x
6/2=x/3 x must be 9

or
6/2(3)=x
6(3)=2x x must be 9

or
6/2(3)=x
(3)/2=x/6 x must be 9

Alternately the equation should be written as 6*0.5*3 because divide by 2 is equal to times by a half. How could you possibly interpret it to be 6*0.5/3 ???

That is, you are saying that 6/2(1+2) is exactly the same as 6/2/(1+2) I don't think so.

The only proper way it can be written to equal 1 is 6/(2(3)) otherwise more complex algebra would collapse in a heap of ambiguity......in my opinion. My old maths lecturers would be rolling in their graves that we are even arguing about this. Any so called convention that can lead to such ambiguity is mathematical trolling.

[Rohan]

Sitting on the couch reading this thread:

Me, "what do you think the answer to this is?"
SWMBO "9"
Me "that's what I think too but some people think it's 1."
SWMBO "1? Only if you didn't go to school"

Didn't just marry her for her body, or taste in cars :)

[Eevo]

used the wrong convention and the guys used the wrong convention?

but your out of step with the standard convention recognised around the world.

the convention isnt wrong, just different.
its like how some countrues use 220–240 V/50 Hz and some use 100–127 V/60 Hz


no, im in step with what my education taught me. i blame my education.

[uninformed]

I just punched the basic equation into my Casio fx-100au, and it comes up as 1

I entered, in one line the following. 6/2(1+2)

note, / represents the divsion symbol.

prior to this I was just doing it in my head.....:angel:

[mike_ie]

yep, but even Casio can't agree with themselves... :D

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[d@rk51d3]

You can trust T.I. ;)

http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n422/r33c1eb0y/2013-01-14_16-49-19_24.jpg

[Eevo]

i asked 2 guys at work today
they said it was 1

somewhere, out there, someone is teaching it.

[mike_ie]

Never mind what 6/2(1+2) equals... I think the bigger question here is, who the hell goes out and buys themselves a baby blue calculator??? :D

[isuzurover]

The equation is poorly formatted.

However, if you type in:

6/2*(1+2)

into both Python and MATLAB, the output from both is 9.

Really it should be written

6
_ * (1+2)
2

[d@rk51d3]

Never mind what 6/2(1+2) equals... I think the bigger question here is, who the hell goes out and buys themselves a baby blue calculator??? :D

I know, I know. :p


I found it for $15 at cash~converters. They were going on ebay for about $100 at the time.

I actually bought it to inject jaibreak code into my PS3. :twisted:

[Ferret]

yep, but even Casio can't agree with themselves... :D

http://photos5.pix.ie/27/A8/27A813CEA1464E219170D9E53AE0186A-0000358552-0003129648-00500L-322CAFCCB6C249D5921442B7A503721F.jpg

I think the explanation is one calculator treats the division operator as a 'obelus' the other treats the division operator in the more convention way


The obelus, the name for the symbol denoting “÷”, is argued by some[20][21] to represent the division of all terms preceding it by all terms after it. The obelus supposedly separates the two components of the fraction, with the top dot representing the numerator and the bottom dot representing the denominator. There is some support that the obelus did mean this,[22] but whether people still mean this today, or use it interchangeably with “/” today is unclear.

ISO 80000-2-9.6[23] states that the obelus should not be used.

Interesting reading on all this (for some I suppose :D) is here

48÷2(9+3) = ? Part of a series on Trolling. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293)

[rick130]

[snip]

prior to this I was just doing it in my head.....:angel:

or doing your head in ? :D

[rick130]

[snip]

Really it should be written

6
_ * (1+2)
2

And I think everyone would then agree on the answer.




In a way I'm glad the grads are arguing over this and can't agree, 'cause this dumb **** old tradie doesn't feel so bad now :D

[isuzurover]

And I think everyone would then agree on the answer.




In a way I'm glad the grads are arguing over this and can't agree, 'cause this dumb **** old tradie doesn't feel so bad now :D

Maths is no different from English. Just as poor punctuation and formatting can change the meaning of a sentence...

[uninformed]

Ok I understand that its basicly a troll, and not written correctly, but the argument and definition of the divison symbol etc doesnt make sense to me, as I thought the main difference was how the 2 was treated in relation to the brackets, and equation within?

They way Ben has written it, both, have the multiplictaion symbol between the 2 and the bracket, this of course changes it to only one correct option. But with the 2 against the bracket, isnt it back to this:

Implied Multiplication Precedence


There does exist the argument that implied multiplication should be considered to have higher precedence than normal multiplication or division. For example, consider the problem "2/5x."

If one strictly follows the standard order of operations, the correct interpretation would be “(2/5)*(x).”

But many calculators and textbooks state that a higher value of precedence should be placed on implied multiplication than on explicit multiplication:

Because “5x” is implied to be "5*x," it gets higher priority than "2/5." In this case, "2/5x" would be interpreted as "(2)/(5*x)."

Returning to the original problem, if one utilizes the principles of implied multiplication, then “2(9+3)” gets higher precedence than the explicit “48/2,” and would be solved like this:

48 ÷ 2(9+3)=
48 ÷ 2(12)=
48 ÷ 24=
2


Proponents of higher precedence on implied multiplication would agree that 48 ÷ 2 * (9+3) = 288, but argue that 48 ÷ 2(9+3) = 2, which is how the problem was presented originally. However, there is a lack of consensus on the precedence of implied multiplication


I guess the last statement in bold somes it up.......

[Blknight.aus]

what it means is this.

if you come across

4/2*2 you would get 4 as the intent of the / is that you conduct the formula from left to right

if you did it as 4÷2*2 then you get 1 because the question is ment to be read as everything before the ÷ goes on the top half of a fraction and everything after it is ment to be under the line

so instead of doing 4/2 (giving 2) and then multiplying by 2 (giving four)

you would do

4
---
2x2

which becomes

4
---
4

which equals 1

[isuzurover]

...

They way Ben has written it, both, have the multiplictaion symbol between the 2 and the bracket, this of course changes it to only one correct option. But with the 2 against the bracket, isnt it back to this:

Implied Multiplication Precedence

.....

I have never heard of the bolded bit.

There are many ways you can write the same thing in maths. A mathematician would say that:
2(1+2)
2.(1+2)
2*(1+2)
2x(1+2)

are all the same. Just that a computer needs the * symbol (which is why I added it).

[justinc]

FGS!!! , the answer is 9 already!!

:p


JC

[Eevo]

I have never heard of the bolded bit.

There are many ways you can write the same thing in maths. A mathematician would say that:
2(1+2)
2.(1+2)
2*(1+2)
2x(1+2)

are all the same. Just that a computer needs the * symbol (which is why I added it).

* and x are the same. Rest have different meanings.

[mike_ie]

* and x are the same. Rest have different meanings.

Unless you're dealing with dot product or matrix multiplication, then no ,they don't. Not in the level of mathematics implied by the question at least.

Multiplication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication#Notation_and_terminology)

I think we've already established that the question is purposely ambiguously written so that some asshole on facebook can get their rocks off watching people get their knickers in a twist trying to prove it one way or the other...

[Eevo]

Unless you're dealing with dot product or matrix multiplication, then no ,they don't. Not in the level of mathematics implied by the question at least.


if i didnt point out the difference, everyone would go off thinking they are the same, then later, when they come across something different, they pipeup and go, "its the same" when really its not.

people saying they never heard of implied multiplication need to go back and have a look at their education and what else they didnt learn.

[Landy Smurf]

i read it as 6
------
2(1+2)
which =1

[vnx205]

Next time someone has a go at Ron or me, claiming we are pedantic about spelling and grammar, I will direct them to this thread.

I will suggest that we aren't as picky as some mathematicians. :D

I might even suggest that English spelling and grammar are no more confusing than mathematical rules and conventions. :D:D

However, I have enjoyed following this thread and reading the links that have been posted. :)

[uninformed]

what it means is this.

if you come across

4/2*2 you would get 4 as the intent of the / is that you conduct the formula from left to right

if you did it as 4÷2*2 then you get 1 because the question is ment to be read as everything before the ÷ goes on the top half of a fraction and everything after it is ment to be under the line

so instead of doing 4/2 (giving 2) and then multiplying by 2 (giving four)

you would do

4
---
2x2

which becomes

4
---
4

which equals 1

ok, got you on the divison symbol differences, but it also comes back to the relation of the 2 to the eqaution inside the brackets.

As there is no symbol between the 2 and brackets, AND the / is used between the 6 and 2 im guessing it comes back to a combination of what you said Dave and the other rule. that is since / was used it doesnt put everything else under the 6, BUT since there is nothing between the 2 and the brackets the 2 becomes part of that equation

so 2(1+2) = 6
then 6/6 is 1

I agree if there was a x symbol between the 2 and the brackets it would have to be 9

:angel:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/



now since that is all sorted, can someone please tell me what stub axles and hubs to run on my 300tdi sals rear so I can convert it to earlier longer stubs and wider hubs???? that is basicly the same equation as above becuase it confuses old school with new school :D

[mick88]

ok, got you on the divison symbol differences, but it also comes back to the relation of the 2 to the eqaution inside the brackets.

As there is no symbol between the 2 and brackets, AND the / is used between the 6 and 2 im guessing it comes back to a combination of what you said Dave and the other rule. that is since / was used it doesnt put everything else under the 6, BUT since there is nothing between the 2 and the brackets the 2 becomes part of that equation

so 2(1+2) = 6
then 6/6 is 1

I agree if there was a x symbol between the 2 and the brackets it would have to be 9

:angel:

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment.php?attachmentid=55556&d=1358210346

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment.php?attachmentid=55557&d=1358210371



now since that is all sorted, can someone please tell me what stub axles and hubs to run on my 300tdi sals rear so I can convert it to earlier longer stubs and wider hubs???? that is basicly the same equation as above becuase it confuses old school with new school :D


Was that 300*tdi or 300/tdi or maybe even 300.tdi or perhaps 300xtdi? :D

[uninformed]

actually its a 98/110-2.8(Tgv) :o

[mike_ie]

Right, now that's all solved, what's 48/2(9+3) = ???

Discuss. :p

[uninformed]

Mike, I take it you like fishing with lures....

here is a school of fish to troll through:

48÷2(9+3) = ? | Know Your Meme (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293)

[mike_ie]

here is a school of fish to troll through:


Would love to mate, but I'm busy trying to get my 60/2(6+4)tdi engine to bloody start.... :)

[uninformed]

I've never heard of a 3tdi????