| Forum Main>>Non related>> can you solve this: 6/2(2+1) |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
CaptainObvious
ID: 1019122
Level: 59
Posts: 4257
Score: 2518
|
Posted on Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:57:43
|
By Mr_Capitalist [1422486]
6/2(2+1) is the same as (6/2)(2+1)
(3)(3)
9
also, the fact that 1 has more votes than 9 is very, very, VERY scary. |
this.
|
 |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5095
Score: 3505
|
Posted on Sat Jan 12, 2013 14:46:36
|
By Astral [300312]
It equals 0 obviously.
6/2(2+1)
= a/b(b+c))
= a/a
= a/√a
= a/√[(-a)(-a)]
= a/√(-a)√(-a)
= a/a^2
= a-a
= 0
|
when I mentioned mathtards before, I was thinking of your type.
|
 |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
AquaRegia
ID: 1551111
Level: 63
Posts: 1165
Score: 1441
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:37:50
|
It's 1.
6/2(2+1) is the same as 6/(2(2+1))
However, 6/2*(2+1) is 9, the * makes all the difference.
|
 |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
KneleSRB
ID: 1633815
Level: 25
Posts: 342
Score: 152
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:59:40
|
6/2 x (2+1)
3 x (2+1)
3 x 3
9
Division and multiplication always have the bigger priority.
PERIOD!!
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5095
Score: 3505
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:55:20
|
By AquaRegia [1551111]
It's 1.
6/2(2+1) is the same as 6/(2(2+1))
However, 6/2*(2+1) is 9, the * makes all the difference. |
got a question for you.
when you see 2x, what does it mean? 2*x or 2/x?
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5095
Score: 3505
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:56:22
|
By ASOT [1633815]
6/2 x (2+1)
3 x (2+1)
3 x 3
9
Division and multiplication always have the bigger priority.
PERIOD!! |
(2+1) is done first. you still got the right result, but your line of thought is wrong.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
AquaRegia
ID: 1551111
Level: 63
Posts: 1165
Score: 1441
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 13:01:21
|
By Spurtung [96875]
By AquaRegia [1551111]
It's 1.
6/2(2+1) is the same as 6/(2(2+1))
However, 6/2*(2+1) is 9, the * makes all the difference. |
got a question for you.
when you see 2x, what does it mean? 2*x or 2/x? |
2x implies multiplication, so 2*x.
The thing with x(y + z) is that the x counts as part of the parenthesis if you don't put a * between them.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
gianlux89
ID: 1697745
Level: 15
Posts: 10
Score: 1
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 16:50:22
|
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/kZkTv_WTSxA
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5095
Score: 3505
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:36:39
|
By AquaRegia [1551111]
By Spurtung [96875]
By AquaRegia [1551111]
It's 1.
6/2(2+1) is the same as 6/(2(2+1))
However, 6/2*(2+1) is 9, the * makes all the difference. |
got a question for you.
when you see 2x, what does it mean? 2*x or 2/x? |
2x implies multiplication, so 2*x.
The thing with x(y + z) is that the x counts as part of the parenthesis if you don't put a * between them. |
lol, you should review your textbooks, or go back to school.
if x=2, y=4 and z=6, x(y + z) = 2*(4+6) = 2*10 = 20, make no mistake about it or try to change the rules. the x DOES NOT "count as part of the parenthesis if you don't put a * between them." you don't have to put 'x', '*' or '.' because multiplication is implied when there's nothing in between.
now make x=6/2, what's the difference? instead of a whole number, it's a fraction. it does not mean that you'll divide whatever comes next by putting parenthesis that weren't there to make it look right. it's wrong.
it's funny how you easily state that "6/2(2+1) is the same as 6/(2(2+1))".
can't you see you are in fact assuming (2(2+1)) is the same as (2*(2+1))? (which is)
so why can't you do that very same reasoning to the original problem?
here, add parenthesis in a way they won't change anything and then tell me how you can see similar things in completely different ways: 6/2(2+1) is the same as (6/2(2+1)), now what?
(2(2+1)) is 2*3=6
but
(6/2(2+1)) is not 6/2*3=9?
6/2(2+1) is the same as the following number 2
Last Edited: Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:45:10
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
TedThomas
ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21135
Score: 15743
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:44:55
|
It can be interpreted either way because its written poorly, this has been explained like 4 times now.
|
 |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5095
Score: 3505
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:54:08
|
By TedThomas [887131]
It can be interpreted either way because its written poorly, this has been explained like 4 times now. |
it really can't unless you add things that weren't there at all.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
TedThomas
ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21135
Score: 15743
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:55:44
|
Its the lack of things that arent there that makes it not clear on what it is asking. It matters whether the 2 is distributed through the parenthesis or it is part of the fraction (6/2). Since there is no parenthesis to specify, it is not clear which way to interpret it.
Last Edited: Fri Jan 18, 2013 17:57:40
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
KneleSRB
ID: 1633815
Level: 25
Posts: 342
Score: 152
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 19:01:50
|
By Spurtung [96875]
By ASOT [1633815]
6/2 x (2+1)
3 x (2+1)
3 x 3
9
Division and multiplication always have the bigger priority.
PERIOD!! |
(2+1) is done first. you still got the right result, but your line of thought is wrong. |
It doesnt matter.
Last Edited: Fri Jan 18, 2013 19:05:06
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5095
Score: 3505
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 19:32:44
|
By ASOT [1633815]
By Spurtung [96875]
By ASOT [1633815]
6/2 x (2+1)
3 x (2+1)
3 x 3
9
Division and multiplication always have the bigger priority.
PERIOD!! |
(2+1) is done first. you still got the right result, but your line of thought is wrong. |
It doesnt matter. |
not for something as simple as this. but take it a few notches up and you'll be lost.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5095
Score: 3505
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 19:42:28
|
By TedThomas [887131]
Its the lack of things that arent there that makes it not clear on what it is asking. It matters whether the 2 is distributed through the parenthesis or it is part of the fraction (6/2). Since there is no parenthesis to specify, it is not clear which way to interpret it. |
multiplication doesn't always have to be clearly stated, sometimes it's implied.
so why can you say that 6/2(1+2)=6/(2(1+2)), which you then actually calculate as 6/(2*(1+2)), but you can't immediately compute that implied multiplication to the original 6/2(1+2) making it 6/2*(1+2)?
I agree only an idiot would input it as 6/2(1+2), and how it could mess with how machines are programmed. but when doing it by hand, there's absolutely no doubt the right answer is 9.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
KneleSRB
ID: 1633815
Level: 25
Posts: 342
Score: 152
|
Posted on Fri Jan 18, 2013 22:06:02
|
By Spurtung [96875]
By ASOT [1633815]
By Spurtung [96875]
By ASOT [1633815]
6/2 x (2+1)
3 x (2+1)
3 x 3
9
Division and multiplication always have the bigger priority.
PERIOD!! |
(2+1) is done first. you still got the right result, but your line of thought is wrong. |
It doesnt matter. |
not for something as simple as this. but take it a few notches up and you'll be lost. |
True and true.
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
RowdyRedneck
ID: 995650
Level: 40
Posts: 4142
Score: 2108
|
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2013 00:24:51
|
By Spurtung [96875]
By TedThomas [887131]
Its the lack of things that arent there that makes it not clear on what it is asking. It matters whether the 2 is distributed through the parenthesis or it is part of the fraction (6/2). Since there is no parenthesis to specify, it is not clear which way to interpret it. |
multiplication doesn't always have to be clearly stated, sometimes it's implied.
so why can you say that 6/2(1+2)=6/(2(1+2)), which you then actually calculate as 6/(2*(1+2)), but you can't immediately compute that implied multiplication to the original 6/2(1+2) making it 6/2*(1+2) ?
I agree only an idiot would input it as 6/2(1+2), and how it could mess with how machines are programmed. but when doing it by hand, there's absolutely no doubt the right answer is 9. |
Actually if the multiplication was implied and you said yourself it can go as 6/(2(1+2)) You start with the parenthesis.
6/(2(1+2))
6/(2+4)
6/ (6)
1
You would be right
6/2*(1+2) would still be 6/(2(1+2))
however if you did this
(6/2)*(1+2)
(3)(3)
9
You would be wrong
Again this is why TedThomas is right, the way it can be interpreted varies, thus why its an internet meme used to create conversation and argument.
However the answer is simply 1
Last Edited: Sat Jan 19, 2013 00:51:39
|
[13:01] ~Clansdancer who's cock did you suck RowdyRedneck!!! |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
TedThomas
ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21135
Score: 15743
|
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2013 08:35:46
|
You could also write it as
6÷2*(2+1)
= 6÷2*(3)
= 6÷6
= 1
Last Edited: Sat Jan 19, 2013 08:36:14
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5095
Score: 3505
|
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:18:33
|
By RowdyRedneck [995650]
Actually if the multiplication was implied and you said yourself it can go as 6/(2(1+2)) You start with the parenthesis.
6/(2(1+2))
6/(2+4)
6/ (6)
1
You would be right
6/2*(1+2) would still be 6/(2(1+2))
however if you did this
(6/2)*(1+2) |
I never said it could go as 6/(2(1+2)).
Never.
That would mean creating parenthesis and change things.
besides, you're doing what everyone does:
you're able to correctly infer there's an implied multiplication that turns 6/2(1+2) into 6/2*(1+2). you don't need to put anything else in there, just do what you're supposed to do, 6/2*(1+2) = 6/2*3 = 3*3 = 9
in your sequence you make (2(1+2)) = (2+4), why would you do that? you're using distribution when it isn't needed, and maybe that's what's making you assume 6/2*(1+2) equals 6/(2(1+2))
you also suggest 2 possible interpretations, to then choose the wrong.
a) 6/(2(1+2))
and
b) (6/2)*(1+2)
well, a) is completely wrong, you're putting things that weren't there originally (had they been, this whole question wouldn't create any discussion whatsoever), and b) doesn't need parenthesis to make sure 6/2 is done first when it's time to multiply and divide, that will happen anyway if you do things in the right order.
Last Edited: Sat Jan 19, 2013 15:16:12
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5095
Score: 3505
|
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:23:27
|
By TedThomas [887131]
You could also write it as
6÷2*(2+1)
= 6÷2*(3)
= 6÷6
= 1
|
newsflash: when you compute (2+1) it becomes a 3. a simple 3. but even if you make it a (3), like you did, that doesn't mean those () will fetch the closest number and turn 6÷2*(3) into 6÷(2*3) so it can become 6÷6.
therefore
6÷2*(2+1)
= 6÷2*3
(and then you go left to right, I'm afraid, because multiplication and division have equal precedence.)
= 3*3
= 9
Last Edited: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:24:46
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5095
Score: 3505
|
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:37:55
|
the funny shit in all this is that even those that get it wrong can see that
6/2(2+1) = 6/2*(2+1) but then choose to f**k it up by adding extra parenthesis that not only weren't there in the start, but will also completely change the expression.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
GrkManga49
ID: 10856
Level: 60
Posts: 21513
Score: 7370
|
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2013 14:02:30
|
This topic is mostly a battle between the smart, the stupid, and the easily convinced.
|
 |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
TedThomas
ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21135
Score: 15743
|
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2013 15:48:52
|
"Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1.
16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 (**)
= 16 ÷ 4 + 1
= 4 + 1
= 5
The confusing part in the above calculation is how "16 divided by 2[2] + 1" (in the line marked with the double-star) becomes "16 divided by 4 + 1", instead of "8 times by 2 + 1". That's because, even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses outrank division, so the first 2 goes with the [2], rather than with the "16 divided by". That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy:
The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently."
;)
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm
Last Edited: Sat Jan 19, 2013 15:50:42
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Evil-Duck
ID: 1182047
Level: 39
Posts: 5077
Score: -3333
|
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2013 17:28:59
|
Answer in 3.
6/2(2+1)
2+1 = 3
6/2 = 3
3+3/2 = 3
Peace
|
 Staff edit |
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5095
Score: 3505
|
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2013 18:14:59
|
By TedThomas [887131]
"Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1.
16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1
= 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 (**)
= 16 ÷ 4 + 1
= 4 + 1
= 5
The confusing part in the above calculation is how "16 divided by 2[2] + 1" (in the line marked with the double-star) becomes "16 divided by 4 + 1", instead of "8 times by 2 + 1". That's because, even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses outrank division, so the first 2 goes with the [2], rather than with the "16 divided by". That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication. Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy:
The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently."
;)
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops2.htm |
very well, now answer me this then.
is there anything preventing juxtaposition being done with fractions instead of whole numbers?
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Bueno_Excelente
ID: 34014
Level: 59
Posts: 15212
Score: 9573
|
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2013 19:09:16
|
By GrkManga49 [10856]
This topic is mostly a battle between the smart, the stupid, and the easily convinced. |
And it's one of those battles that we all lose.
By Spurtung [96875]
is there anything preventing juxtaposition being done with fractions instead of whole numbers? |
You mean other than proper & unambiguous mathematical notation?
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5095
Score: 3505
|
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2013 20:04:59
|
By Bueno_Excelente [34014]
By Spurtung [96875]
is there anything preventing juxtaposition being done with fractions instead of whole numbers? |
You mean other than proper & unambiguous mathematical notation? |
regular typing doesn't allow to write fractions properly.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Bueno_Excelente
ID: 34014
Level: 59
Posts: 15212
Score: 9573
|
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2013 20:58:25
|
By Spurtung [96875]
By Bueno_Excelente [34014]
By Spurtung [96875]
is there anything preventing juxtaposition being done with fractions instead of whole numbers? |
You mean other than proper & unambiguous mathematical notation? |
regular typing doesn't allow to write fractions properly. |
In which case you'd still need to specify that it's a separate and distinct expression in the equation by use of brackets.
Any way you look at it, this is just bad notation.
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
Spurtung
ID: 96875
Level: 80
Posts: 5095
Score: 3505
|
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2013 21:30:36
|
By Bueno_Excelente [34014]
By Spurtung [96875]
By Bueno_Excelente [34014]
By Spurtung [96875]
is there anything preventing juxtaposition being done with fractions instead of whole numbers? |
You mean other than proper & unambiguous mathematical notation? |
regular typing doesn't allow to write fractions properly. |
In which case you'd still need to specify that it's a separate and distinct expression in the equation by use of brackets.
Any way you look at it, this is just bad notation.
|
yes, I did say that before
By Spurtung [96875]
I agree only an idiot would input it as 6/2(1+2), and how it could mess with how machines are programmed. |
|
|
| Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0 |
RowdyRedneck
ID: 995650
Level: 40
Posts: 4142
Score: 2108
|
Posted on Sun Jan 20, 2013 04:19:55
|
By Spurtung [96875]
By RowdyRedneck [995650]
Actually if the multiplication was implied and you said yourself it can go as 6/(2(1+2)) You start with the parenthesis.
6/(2(1+2))
6/(2+4)
6/ (6)
1
You would be right
6/2*(1+2) would still be 6/(2(1+2))
however if you did this
(6/2)*(1+2) |
I never said it could go as 6/(2(1+2)).
Never.
That would mean creating parenthesis and change things.
besides, you're doing what everyone does:
you're able to correctly infer there's an implied multiplication that turns 6/2(1+2) into 6/2*(1+2). you don't need to put anything else in there, just do what you're supposed to do, 6/2*(1+2) = 6/2*3 = 3*3 = 9
in your sequence you make (2(1+2)) = (2+4), why would you do that? you're using distribution when it isn't needed, and maybe that's what's making you assume 6/2*(1+2) equals 6/(2(1+2))
you also suggest 2 possible interpretations, to then choose the wrong.
a) 6/(2(1+2))
and
b) (6/2)*(1+2)
well, a) is completely wrong, you're putting things that weren't there originally (had they been, this whole question wouldn't create any discussion whatsoever), and b) doesn't need parenthesis to make sure 6/2 is done first when it's time to multiply and divide, that will happen anyway if you do things in the right order. |
Here let me make it simpler for you.
6/2(1+2) in word a word problem
Have 6 apples, with 2 classes where combination of 2 boys & 1 girl.
So, each of them get how many apple(s)?
thus, 2 classes , 2 boys & 1 girl = 3 students + 3 Students = total 6 students
Now, only have 6 apples
6 apples for 6 students.
Therefore, 1 student only have 1 apple = 1
Last Edited: Sun Jan 20, 2013 04:22:39
|
[13:01] ~Clansdancer who's cock did you suck RowdyRedneck!!! |
|
|
![CaptainObvious [1019122]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1019122-84589-large.png "CaptainObvious [1019122]")
![Spurtung [96875]](http://awardimages.torn.com/96875-74581-large.png "Spurtung [96875]")
![AquaRegia [1551111]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1551111-56734-large.png "AquaRegia [1551111]")
![KneleSRB [1633815]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1633815-27616-large.png "KneleSRB [1633815]")
![gianlux89 [1697745]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1697745-28897-large.png "gianlux89 [1697745]")
![TedThomas [887131]](http://awardimages.torn.com/887131-65195-large.png "TedThomas [887131]")
![RowdyRedneck [995650]](http://awardimages.torn.com/995650-83094-large.png "RowdyRedneck [995650]")
![GrkManga49 [10856]](http://awardimages.torn.com/10856-74173-large.png "GrkManga49 [10856]")
![Evil-Duck [1182047]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1182047-4958-large.png "Evil-Duck [1182047]")
![Bueno_Excelente [34014]](http://awardimages.torn.com/34014-23924-large.png "Bueno_Excelente [34014]")
Follow @TornRPG