/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7539146
it's 1, not 9

deal with it faggot

Dumbed down version of 48÷2(9+3).

>>7539146
6/2(1+2)
= 6/2(3)
= 6/2x3
= 3x3
= 9

Suck it, common core.

>>7539151
no dumb shit

6/2(1+2)
= 6/2(3)
= 6/2x3
= 6/6
= 1

>>7539149
Of course it's 1

>>7539151
This is correct.

>>7539146
>le epin ambigously formatted pemdas shitbait
kill yourself you carcinogenic fuckwit
sage goes in all fields

>>7539158
The problem is that
6/2(3) =/= 6/2×3
2(3) is a single unit, 6, expressed in a different way. 2x3 is a 2 and a 3 interacting with each other.

>>7539174
Both are just multiplication expressed in a different way.

>>7539158
Maybe in Saudi Arabia. In the half of the world with indoor toilets, we solve the problem left to right, not right to left.

>>7539177
Not exactly. The multiplication is the same on its own but needs more clarification if you want to write it the other way.
6/2(3) = 6/(2×3) =/= 6/2x3

>>7539146
9

>>7539174
> 2(3) is a single unit
> 2
> 3
Looks like two units to me, sperglord

>>7539202
>x(3+y)=x*3+y
K

>>7539194
Not in my books.

>>7539213
If the problem were
6÷2*(1+2), it would absolutely be 9 but that's now how it's written. It's 6÷2(1+2) which is the same thing as 6÷(2(1+2)). 2(1+2) is written as one unit, meant to be dealt with as one unit. That's what the entire disagreement of this problem is about. It's implied to go before the division in the problem.