/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3423043
9

decimal bar sign is ambiguous and is only be used in 4th grade math

the answer is 1, OP now go away

It's 0

BIDMAS

Brackets: (1+2)=3
Indices: N/A
Division: 6/2=3
Multiplication: 3(3)=9
Addition: N/A
Subtraction: N/A

= 9

The answer is 9

>>3423047
the fuck did you just say?
1
this is some advanced shit

'Tis 9.

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

9
your fucking answer

6/2 X 2(1+2)

>>3423083
I think you meant 3/1

order of operations...fuckin 8th grade shit 1+2=3 2(3)=6 6/6=1 answer 1

/sci/
>where we do third grade math!

>>3423088
oh fuck
yes I did
thank you good sir.

oops not two 2

>take GRE
>see division sign
>mfw

>>3423091
Don't worry. You're just adding undue priority to distributive multiplication. It has no precedence, so the answer is 9.

Approximatelly 0,26086956521739130434782608695652.

9. Not even a question.

Both answers are right, the question is ambiguous

Its a poorly worded problem made just to be a dick.

(6/2)(1+2) is what it would look like if assholes werent trolling.

>>3423099
Fuck, is it really on there? Why is the GRE so retarded? No one grad schools care so much about research and recs.

>>3423108
>No one
*No wonder

>>3423108
You should see the GRE math subject test. It's fucking obscure trig questions.

6/[2(1+2)]

>6/[2(3)]
>6/(6)
>1

>>3423105
either that or you're just an idiot.
clue: you're an idiot.
there is no rule saying division takes precedence. in this case the omission of the multiplication sign suggests that it is associated with the 2 and hence takes precedence.
but it really doesn't fucking matter, it's ambiguous. the only reason these troll threads work is because of fucking morons like you who think one of the answers is obviously correct according to some bullshit baseless rule you learned in highschool.

When two operations of equal priority occur, you always read left to right. The answer is that you perform 1+2, then perform 6/2, then perform (6/2)(3)
There are no brackets, meaning you don't take the 2(1+2) as an object. I can't provide citation, but I've asked three math professors and they all agreed that, in the linear format, the sensible assumption was that the sum shouldn't be taken as 6/(2(1+2))

6/2(1+2)
6/1(2+4)
6/1 * 2+4/1
6*8
48

The answer is 48.
I didn't ask for these powers.

>>3423043
Distribute, niggas!
(6/2 * 1) + (6/2 * 2) =
6/2 + 12/2
3 + 6 =
9

The important part here is that multiplication and division are simultaneous. 2(1+2) occurs at the same moment as 6/2, thus you apply them equally by distributing the whole mess.

this is why RPN is so much better, it would get rid of a lot of trolls

It's 9 op.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6%2F2%281%2B2%29+

>>3423132
>you always read left to right.
NOPE.jpg

>>3423152

In simple stuff like this.. yes, yes you do.

>>3423152
Linear notation. You run through performing operations in the most nested parentheses, then by multiplication and division with equal precedence, then addition and subtraction with equal precedence. Ask your teacher.

>>3423155
except you have no idea what you're talking about and you're just making up bullshit with zero reason. :)

>>3423158
the division and multiplication aren't within parentheses you fuckwit

>>3423155
You are mistaken, as math is ambidextrous. There is no such necessity as to define left to right mechanics. Functions occur at their appropriate order based on the algebra regardless of placement on the paper.

>>3423164
>You run through performing operations in the most nested parentheses, then by multiplication and division
>performing operations in the most nested parentheses
>then by multiplication and division

>>3423165
in what order would you perform 7*3/5?

>>3423181
they're the same thing you stupid cunt

>>3423190
see
>>3423181

>>3423181
it doesn't matter as long as you divide by 5 and multiply by 3

>>3423205
it definitely matters. Look at the original question for an example of a time at which it does.

6/2(1+2)
6/2+4
3+4
7

I've solved it without using order of operations!

>>3423199
what the fuck, how stupid are you? i did 'see' that post, that's why i replied to it. now it's your turn. this is how conversations work ya stupid faggot.

>>3423224
See
>>3423181
You didn't answer the question, despite the fact the question has an answer and the answer is vital.

>>3423217
what, where an equation is intentionally written "vaguely" so you can troll with it? still doesn't matter unless you actually write out the fraction bar so it reads (6) over (2*(1+2)).

>>3423229
It matters. If you perform L->R then you get nine, if you perform R->L you get 1. Yes, the question is deliberately vague; its intended to catch you out. No, that doesn't invalidate it.

>>3423228
ummm yes i did? your inability to understand it was an answer suggests to be you are a borderline retard.

you can do it in either order. maybe you'll do it one way monday and the other on tuesday. you'll still get 21/5 on both days.

>>3423241
except neither are conventional. even in higher math in stuff like group theory, direction of operations is specified by the author.

>>3423181
>7*3/5
I go with whichever order offers quicker mental math. I go with 7*3 then /5 in this case, because 7*3 came to mind quicker than 3/5.

7*3 = 21 (mental arithmetic)
3/5 = 0.6 (denom of 5 means num *2 as a decimal)

From here you can go with
21/5 =
20/5 + 1/5 (20/5 = 4 mental arithmetic) =
4 + 1/5 = (denom of 5 means num *2 as a decimal)
4.2

OR
7 * 0.6 =
(7*0.5) + (7*0.1) = 3.5 (memorized) + 0.7 (simple decimal movement)
3.5 + .7 =
4.2

>>3423244
this is going nowhere. See >>3423132
I didn't ask for a solution. I asked whether you read L->R,
>>3423253
L->R is convention, I'm almost certain. I've never seen a different order specified.

>>3423241
L to R is 6 times 0.5 times (1 plus 2).
R to L is (2 plus 1) times 0.5 times 6.

>>3423262
I see what you did there.
That's generally a sensible interpretation, but what if you swap the multiplication for division instead?

>>3423261
it's because you're a clueless dweeb.
because of function notation it often convention in higher math to read from right to left.
but in overall neither is a definite convention.

The problem with the statement 6÷2(1+2) is the ambiguity that comes with the use of the division sign, "÷".

On one hand, some will interpret "÷" as a binary division operator operating on only the immediate term available — in this case, the 2 in 2(1+2). In this group of thinking, <span class="math">6\div 2(1+2) = 3(1+2)=3\cdot3=9[/spoiler].

On the other hand, some will interpret "÷" as binary division operator operating on ALL terms adjacent to the operator — in this case, the 2(1+2). In this group of thinking, <span class="math">6\div 2(1+2) = \frac{6}{2(1+2)} = \frac{6}{2\cdot3} = \frac{6}{6} = 1[/spoiler]

>>3423278
I've genuinely never heard the word dweeb used seriously by anyone over the age of 8. Thought you should know.

This isn't calculus, it's basic arithmetic. I cannot make absolute claims, but I've always been taught to use left to right, in higher and lower maths.

>>3423290
Get out more, dweeb. I was born in 1965.

>>3423274
Are you trying to get me to divide 2 by 6 before multiplying by 3?

What would you read 1/2x as?
(1/2)*x or 1/(2x) ?

Some people in previous troll threads claimed of a convention that says that leaving out the multiplication sign, e.g. writing 2x instead of 2*x binds stronger than division. Therefore, 1/2x=1/(2x).

However, it has also been claimed that this only goes for monomials, i.e. for 2x, but NOT for 2(x+1) or whatever.
So according to that, the answer would be 9 in OP's problem.

Notice that this question shouldn't be resolved with calculators or anything - take two calculators of the same manufacturer and you may get either result.

But there is a reason people use fractions.

And about the "do you go from left to right or right to left?":
You can only use either direction if you replace subtraction by adding a negative, and division by multiplication of the inverse.
5-3 is not the same when read from the right to left as it is from left to right, but 5+(-3) is.

>>3423296
lol, no. I'm saying that 6*0.5*(1+2) can also be written as 6/2/(1/3) in which case order matters.

>>3423309
Crepe
this was intended for >>3423301

>>3423309
Oh I see what you are saying, that's interesting.

PEDMAS
Parenthasis
Exponents
Division/Multiplication(same priority, solve left to right)
Addition/Subtraction(same priority, solve left to right)

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