6÷2(1+2)

[gimp]

I have figured out the meaning of life, but I cannot figure out this simple math problem. Help would be appreciated.

[Ruben]

Badly written math problem. I'd even go as far as to say it's wrong. Assuming that it's supposed to be written with "2(1+2)" under the dividing line the solution is 1. If only "2" is under the line the solution is 9.

[Lukazz]

Badly written math problem. I'd even go as far as to say it's wrong. Assuming that it's supposed to be written with "2(1+2)" under the dividing line the solution is 1. If only "2" is under the line the solution is 9.

Why should (1+2) be part of the denominator? It would be written as 6/(2(1+2)) then.

[kuchitsu]

hey guys what will happen if you put a plane on a conveyor belt moving with the same speed?!

[gimp]

Damnit kuch this is serious :/

[Ruben]

hey guys what will happen if you put a plane on a conveyor belt moving with the same speed?!

Planes are propelled by way of jet engines, not wheels, and how fast the ground is moving has no effect on lift, so there wouldn't be much of a difference.

[Ruben]

Badly written math problem. I'd even go as far as to say it's wrong. Assuming that it's supposed to be written with "2(1+2)" under the dividing line the solution is 1. If only "2" is under the line the solution is 9.

Why should (1+2) be part of the denominator? It would be written as 6/(2(1+2)) then.

And if not it should be written as (6/2)(1+2). Either way 6/2(1+2) is ambiguous, and as such is an incorrectly stated problem.

[jonsykkel]

Badly written math problem. I'd even go as far as to say it's wrong. Assuming that it's supposed to be written with "2(1+2)" under the dividing line the solution is 1. If only "2" is under the line the solution is 9.

Why should (1+2) be part of the denominator? It would be written as 6/(2(1+2)) then.

And if not it should be written as (6/2)(1+2). Either way 6/2(1+2) is ambiguous, and as such is an incorrectly stated problem.

its not ambiguououous its 9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
for the same reason 10/5/2 is not 4

[Ruben]

Badly written math problem. I'd even go as far as to say it's wrong. Assuming that it's supposed to be written with "2(1+2)" under the dividing line the solution is 1. If only "2" is under the line the solution is 9.

Why should (1+2) be part of the denominator? It would be written as 6/(2(1+2)) then.

And if not it should be written as (6/2)(1+2). Either way 6/2(1+2) is ambiguous, and as such is an incorrectly stated problem.

its not ambiguououous its 9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
for the same reason 10/5/2 is not 4

Yeah sure the general rule is to go from left to right, but writing badly like that is still something actual mathmaticians don't do, and it's something you're taught not to do because the question is unclear.

I found this quite a fun read: http://www.math.harvard.edu/~knill/pedagogy/ambiguity/

[kuchitsu]

* Ruben was banned from the server. Reason: using quote towers.

[Lousku]

* Ruben was banned from the server. Reason: using quote towers.

Way moar bannable to cut context away. But I wish pipel would stop putting useless linebreaks after quotes!

[jonsykkel]

Badly written math problem. I'd even go as far as to say it's wrong. Assuming that it's supposed to be written with "2(1+2)" under the dividing line the solution is 1. If only "2" is under the line the solution is 9.

Why should (1+2) be part of the denominator? It would be written as 6/(2(1+2)) then.

And if not it should be written as (6/2)(1+2). Either way 6/2(1+2) is ambiguous, and as such is an incorrectly stated problem.

its not ambiguououous its 9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
for the same reason 10/5/2 is not 4

Yeah sure the general rule is to go from left to right, but writing badly like that is still something actual mathmaticians don't do, and it's something you're taught not to do because the question is unclear.

I found this quite a fun read: http://www.math.harvard.edu/~knill/pedagogy/ambiguity/

it cud b writed more clerly but that dosent mean it dosent have a right anser
sems to be many inacuracies in that page, he blablas as if its a mater of onion
guote from that vikpedia page i puted (about "PEDMAS"/"PEMDAS" thing)

These mnemonics may be misleading when written this way,[7] especially if the user is not aware that multiplication and division are of equal precedence, as are addition and subtraction.

[Zweq]

÷ is mongo. Then again there is no proper way to type fractions.
6÷2 is mongo.

[Ruben]

it cud b writed more clerly but that dosent mean it dosent have a right anser
sems to be many inacuracies in that page, he blablas as if its a mater of onion
guote from that vikpedia page i puted (about "PEDMAS"/"PEMDAS" thing)

These mnemonics may be misleading when written this way,[7] especially if the user is not aware that multiplication and division are of equal precedence, as are addition and subtraction.

And since they have equal precedence they should never be written in that idiotic way. Brackets are missing, both solutions are viable.

÷ is mongo. Then again there is no proper way to type fractions.
6÷2 is mongo.

The most sensible thing you've ever said, Zweq.

[Tigro]

If there are operations with same priority one after another, they get priority from left to right (i.e. which came first is resolved first).

[jonsykkel]

it cud b writed more clerly but that dosent mean it dosent have a right anser
sems to be many inacuracies in that page, he blablas as if its a mater of onion
guote from that vikpedia page i puted (about "PEDMAS"/"PEMDAS" thing)

These mnemonics may be misleading when written this way,[7] especially if the user is not aware that multiplication and division are of equal precedence, as are addition and subtraction.

And since they have equal precedence they should never be written in that idiotic way. Brackets are missing, both solutions are viable.

wuld u say 4-2+1 is ambigus also as acording 2 ur own logiccs it could be either 1 or 3 who knows

[pawq]

Yeah, I have to say Ruben, you're not correct on this one. While the notation is shitty (who the fuck uses ÷ after primary school), the order of equivalent operations is left to right, it's not ambiguous. Would've been better with brackets (obviously you don't want this kind of confusion when writing up some scientific results or whatever), but that doesn't change that the equation does have a solution, and only one too.

[Ruben]

I'm not saying Jon's answer is wrong, I'm just saying that the problem is stupid, and if I ever come across something like that I'm gonna call out whoever created that problem for being an idiot. Furthermore, the whole order of operations PEMDAS (sometimes PEDMAS) thing is horribly prone to misinterpretation, and should be taught very carefully. Actually learning how agebra works and learning it properly with parenthesis is much more insightful.

And while it is a popular opinion, can you cite any actual mathmatician who claims without a doubt that going left to right is always correct when dealing with multiplication/division clusterfucks? Cause I couldn't. I did find this though.

https://math.berkeley.edu/~gbergman/mis ... d_ops.html

[Zweq]

To me it feels like the very first thing you do is just simplify 6÷2 to 3, and then no discussion needed. I don't know if it's mathematically 100% correct thing to do, but it just feels like it. And I'm a feel person.

Sure 6÷2*3 or especially 6/2*3 can look a bit amphibious moose.

[gimp]

Yeah what gets me is that in algebra you almost never separate a coefficient from the variable it touches. Like 6÷2y=1. I don't want to do 6÷2 first then assume y=1/3. I want to keep the 2y together and y=3. I have read this to be called "implied multiplication by juxtaposition"

In this problem the first "2" in 6÷2(1+2) just reminds me a lot of a coefficient, so my feelings make me feel the answer is 1, that "2(1+2)" by itself cannot be seperated, I want those numbers to stay together! If it was written as 6÷2x(1+2) I would feel differently for some reason. But I suppose that's why math doesn't care about our feelings right?

Numbers at their root are not man made, they just are. but these symbols and rules we have made for them are man made conventions at the end of the day, what's important is that things are clear in a way that everyone can agree on, I wouldn't call somebody mathematically illiterate for getting this answer wrong because maybe the convention wasn't taught to everyone the same way. I say we start a movement that makes implied multiplication by juxtaposition take precedence over division, as long it becomes accepted i can make this answer become 1.