6/2(1+2) =

**uninformed** · 14th January 2013, 07:14 PM

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** · 14th January 2013, 07:52 PM

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** · 14th January 2013, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by uninformed

...

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** · 14th January 2013, 10:33 PM

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

JC

**Eevo** · 15th January 2013, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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** · 15th January 2013, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by Eevo

* 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

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** · 15th January 2013, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by mike_ie

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** · 15th January 2013, 09:34 AM

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

**vnx205** · 15th January 2013, 09:39 AM

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.

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

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

**uninformed** · 15th January 2013, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by 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

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

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

Thread: 6/2(1+2) =

Thread Tools

Im Missing something

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions