Brainlet farm

[Anonymous No.10730370]

Alright boys, which is it? Remember PEMDAS isnt an axiom.

[Anonymous No.10730375]

9

These threads get more attention on /b/

[Anonymous No.10730379]

6/2.(1+2)
6/2.(3)
6/6
0

[Anonymous No.10730381]

>>10730375
>9
>PEMDAS

no

[Anonymous No.10730384]

>>10730375

Read : PEMDAS isnt an axiom

[Anonymous No.10730386]

>>10730381
>Multiplication has higher priority than division
Wew, lad. Try Khan Academy.

[Anonymous No.10730389]

>>10730386
Prove priority axiomatically brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10730397]

3(3)=9 retard

[Anonymous No.10730398]

The correct answer is 7
>6 ÷ 2(1 + 2)
>6 ÷ 2 + 4
>3 + 4
>7

[Anonymous No.10730409]

>>10730379
you mean 1?

[Anonymous No.10730411]

>>10730379
>6/6 = 0

[Anonymous No.10730419]

>>10730397

6/6

[Anonymous No.10730433]

>ITT : highschool algebra people

[Anonymous No.10730527]

>>10730370

1

[Anonymous No.10730563]

Syntax is wrong, so it bugs out on some calculators.

[Anonymous No.10730611]

>>10730398
based

[Anonymous No.10730686]

>>10730611
and retardpilled.

[Anonymous No.10730688]

>>10730370
6/2(1+2)
6/2*3
3*3
=9

multiplication and division share the same level priority. You have to go to left to right in this case.

brainlets.

[Anonymous No.10730693]

>>10730688

Holy shit left to right and PEMDAS are not laws you mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.10730696]

>>10730693
no they aren't. but they simply guides. guides you brainlets desperately need.

In this case BODMAS will work perfectly for this problem.

also don't use pemdas you elementary retard, thats for children.

[Anonymous No.10730700]

>>10730693
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAgfnK528RA

IT IS A RULE
we need rules so we all know what the fuck we are talking about you fucking retard. It's like grammar you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.10730701]

>>10730696
>BODMAS

Holy dicks NO ORDER OF OPERATIONS is a law you mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.10730702]

>>10730700
Then how come other countries have different rules that also work but give different results?

[Anonymous No.10730706]

>>10730701

ITS NOT A LAW.

IT"S A FUCKING RULE YOU CUM GUZZLING DILDO FOR BRAINS.

A RULE IS JUST UNIVERSAL AGREED ORDER.

DON'T REPRODUCE YOU UGLY FAT RETARDED INCEL TRANNY

[Anonymous No.10730708]

>>10730702
because someone fucked up.

[Anonymous No.10730711]

>>10730706
>>10730708
>>10730696

We can instead use actual axioms to find an answer and not use Grugg brain rules how bout that ?

[Anonymous No.10730715]

>>10730706

The rule is made for kids and their easy ass math questions, why would you keep using it for more complex problems? Are you incapable of moving from that?

[Anonymous No.10730717]

>>10730711
yeah if you want to be inefficient.

[Anonymous No.10730718]

>>10730715

explain what complex problems where that rule couldn't be used?

[Anonymous No.10730735]

>>10730718
LOL he
>>10730715
can't answer because he's a brainlet. what a fucking pathetic excuse of life.

[Anonymous No.10730749]

>>10730718
A problem where using PEMDAS is going to cause a fundamental error like it does when using it on this problem mongrel.

[Anonymous No.10730764]

>>10730715
You fucking retard, order of operations have to exist, otherwise the original statement would be meaningless. How does is feel to be a lower tier human?

[Anonymous No.10730767]

>>10730764
Literally google "is PEMDAS an axiom?"
God damn

[Anonymous No.10730775]

>>10730764
>He's never taken Analysis

[Anonymous No.10730777]

>>10730767
It is not an axiom, nor is it something that needs to be proven. It is a definition. When parenthesis are omitted, we multiply and divide before adding and subtracting because we define it in such a manner because it is the convention, and if we had no rule the original statement would be meaning less.

I understand it is not an axiom because no assumption is being made. It is not true because it is obvious, it is true because we say it is.

[Anonymous No.10730783]

>>10730777
Correct. So it cannot give an absolutely true answer.

[Anonymous No.10730868]

>>10730686
Kek

[Anonymous No.10730887]

>>10730749
OP's problem isn't an actual problem though, it's a bait image with a meaningless mathematical expression.

[Anonymous No.10731273]

>PEDMAS
>BODMAS
This educational system goes right in the bin

[ZakuroTakashima No.10731279]

>>10730375
You should try it on yellow "SCHLOP" "SCHLOP"

[Anonymous No.10731292]

>>10730701
Imagine thinking orthography has anything to do with the underlying math.

[Anonymous No.10731359]

6*2^(-1)*(1+2)

>PEMDAS
>BODMAS
LMAOing at amerilard educations.

[Anonymous No.10731435]

>>10730370
How is this related to pemdas? It's just mathematical notation which by definition has to be well-defined. Writing something like 2(1+2) is omitting a x (times) for brevity. If you insert that again it is perfectly clear the solution is 9.

[Anonymous No.10731439]

I thought this was a smart board

[Anonymous No.10731456]

>>10730398
>The distribute whenever you feel like it property
Anon your Nobel will be in the mail.

[Anonymous No.10731457]

>>10730370
PEMDAS may not be an axiom but it's part of notation and form. Obviously there's no need for parentheses unless you want to alter the order of operations.

[Anonymous No.10731459]

[Anonymous No.10731468]

>>10731439
Difference between /sci/ and /b/ is that retardedness is expressed mathematically here. We also feel very smug about that.

FB/IG threads are iq and clamping
Cuck threads are engineer vs scientist
Etc.

[Anonymous No.10731470]

>>10730370
Can we all just agree that the presence of the obelus makes this a Facebook tier question?

[Anonymous No.10731562]

>>10730370
3 * 3 = 9
division, fractions, and multiplication are all the same priority, not sure why normies have trouble with this

[Anonymous No.10731584]

7

[Anonymous No.10731615]

I loled

[Anonymous No.10731627]

>>10730370
The real answer is that the person writing the problem should have been clearer. Mathematical writing is meant to communicate things. Order of precedence between implicit multiplication and explicit division isn't clear, and for good reason - since nobody uses the [math]÷[/math] symbol past sixth grade, and anyone who wrote the equation would be clearer because their goal is to be understood.

This is like asking:

>In the sentence "I saw the person with the telescope", do I have the telescope or does the person I saw?

In your question, like this one, there isn't just one "right answer" for the grammatical edge case. The author should have clarified to make it unambiguous.

[Anonymous No.10731636]

>>10731627
yeh the division sign is way to ambiguous. fractions ftw..
should be expressed, 6/ 2(1+2)
=1

[Anonymous No.10731659]

>>10730381
shitty pic btw

[Anonymous No.10731660]

"""A census taker approaches a house and asks the woman who answers the door "How many children do you have, and what are their ages?"

The woman replies "I have three children, the product of their ages are 36, the sum of their ages are equal to the address of the house next door."

The census taker walks next door, comes back and says "I need more information."

The woman replies "I have to go, my oldest child is sleeping upstairs."

Census taker then says "Thank you, I now have everything I need." """

Why is this solvable? Because of the information that the solution is unique. Apply this to OP's formula and you have your answer instantly.

[Anonymous No.10731663]

>>10730563
what??

[Anonymous No.10731674]

>>10730783
Of course one can. If you use something the way it's meant to be used, it is correct. You might as well say that you would like to use 2's for 3's etc. and claim that the way you write out numbers is only a definition as well.

[Anonymous No.10731676]

>>10730775
Do you even know what analysis is? This is algebra

[Anonymous No.10731677]

>>10730887
>numbers to badded, divided, multiplicated
>mathematically meaningless
The absolut state of /sci

[Anonymous No.10731717]

This is confusing cause (1+2) could be perceived as part of the denominator or not.
This is why noone uses that division sign.

Also everyone who needs to spell out buzzwords like pemdas or whatever is a fucking brainlet. Problems like these should be trivial to the brain after like 5th grade and spelling out which step takes precedence is literally for retards.

[Anonymous No.10731721]

>>10731717
>This is confusing cause (1+2) could be perceived as part of the denominator or not.
How could it be perceived as part of the denominator when there's no parenthesis that connect it to the division sign?

[Anonymous No.10731737]

>>10731721
because its right next to the 2
why isnt the division like this (6/2) then?
its just badly written

[Anonymous No.10732681]

[Anonymous No.10732687]

>>10730693

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6%2F2(1%2B2)

Looks like your wrong, faggot. Its 9.

[Anonymous No.10732703]

>>10731660
The correct answer is that the woman had triplets but still refers to the one born first as the eldest. Answer is clearly 12.

[Anonymous No.10732710]

>>10731660
Does the child sleeping upstairs imply he or she is underage?

[Anonymous No.10732714]

>>10732703
Nope. You need to find a product of 3 numbers that gives 36 and leaves multiple answers, since the last piece of information was necessary.

[Anonymous No.10732721]

>>10732710
No, but it implies that without this piece of information the problem has multiple solutions.

[Anonymous No.10732749]

Why does order of operations even exist? Why can't one just write an expression that reads left to right orderly?

[Anonymous No.10732954]

>>10730370
So brackets first:
(1+2) is (3), but also
2(3) is 6 and the = is there, so before the 6/ we equate. So 6/=6, which is 6 divided by nothing equating to 6. Invoking the satanic axiom of choice this allow 6 to be the only number that can be divided by zero resulting in the number of the beast.

[Anonymous No.10733021]

Solve this niggas

n>2
z^n + y^n + x^n = w^2n

[Anonymous No.10733032]

>>10731627
Are you high? You evaluate operations with the same priority left to right and use parentheses for operations that you want to perform out of order.

For example, the inverse of ab would be 1/(ab) because 1/ab would be equivalent to b/a. Savvy?

[Anonymous No.10733092]

>>10730370
I personally always felt that in the case of no multiplication sign, The multiplication should be performed first.
Always seems to trigger brainlets however, IDK maybe im just autistic.

[Anonymous No.10733118]

>>10732749
It's more efficient to write and if there is one thing mathematicians like to do and that is write as little as possible to mean as much as possible.

[Klovod !klovFMuNlM No.10733386]

>>10730370
>PEDMAS isn't an axiom
then it's 6/2

then you get 3, so you multiply it by 3. Which gives you 9.

With bedmas, you get 6/2, which is 3. Times 3 which is 9.

[Anonymous No.10733843]

>>10730688
Left to right you say?
>>10731459

[Anonymous No.10733845]

>>10732681
cringe

[Anonymous No.10733858]

>>10731677
No actual mathematician uses ÷, it's too ambiguous you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.10733889]

>>10733845
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0EkDdSP8xuN

[Anonymous No.10734075]

>>10733858
It looks like a take away sign Anon, but it always means divide by.

[Anonymous No.10734403]

>>10730370
if you studies the best bachelor's program (CS), you'd know that the context free grammar of all legal arithmetic strings is inherently ambiguous when you don't use a correct parenthesis rule. Therefore, this problem has no solution.

[Anonymous No.10734419]

>>10734403
>Imagine being this retarded
The parentheses are implied if they're not explicit.
>4+5=(4)+(5)=(4+5)
>3+4*5=(3)+(4)*(5)=(3)+(4*5)
>(3+4)*5=((3)+(4))*(5)=(3)*(5)+(4)*(5)=(3*5)+(4*5)
ect.

If you can't even do arithmetic then it's no wonder you chose CS as a major

[Anonymous No.10734434]

>>10733021
x=y=z=w=0

Where's my Nobel?

[Anonymous No.10734471]

It's 1:

you always do brackets first, which makes it
6 / 2(3)

that's 6 / 6 which equals 1

[Anonymous No.10734511]

>>10734471
Wrong
6/2(1+2)
6/2×3
3×3
9

[Anonymous No.10734528]

>>10734511
Imagine being this niggardly.

[Anonymous No.10734533]

>>10734528
What does saving money have to do with correctly applying the order of operations?

[Anonymous No.10734555]

>>10734419
>parenthesis are implied if they are not explicit
I’m not that guy but this is not always the case. It IS ambiguous. Plenty of acamdeic literature follows both multiplication by the recriprocal and multiplication denoted by juxtaposition whereby the opposites are both true. There’s even a section about this on the wiki page.

[Anonymous No.10734585]

>>10734555
That ambiguity will not arise in arithmetic where each number is a single term. Algebra is what introduces that ambiguity with terms like (2x) or (ab) which are separable and need more care

[Anonymous No.10734632]

>>10734419
Try making an operator tree for OP's
>viral math problem
and you'll see why it's ambiguous.

[Anonymous No.10734645]

>>10730688
>6/2*3
>3*3
retard
you wanted to say
>(6/2)*3

[Anonymous No.10734660]

>>10734585
Do you have an example for an ambiguous statement?

[Anonymous No.10734668]

OK fags so what's
6/2(2)+1 then?
You're all fucking pathetic. This who're right for posting in this thread and those who are wrong for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous No.10734691]

>>10734533
You know what, you Jew.

[Anonymous No.10734701]

>>10734645
multiplication and division are done from left to right, so it's fine

[Anonymous No.10734704]

>>10734668
7

[Anonymous No.10734705]

6/2 is just another way of writing 3 wh*Teoids

[Anonymous No.10734717]

How is everybody so retarded the answer is obviously 6

[Anonymous No.10734718]

>>10731359
=6/8

>>10734705
There is no 6/2 you poo. It clearly has the division symbol in the question and not a fraction.

Brainlets fucking everywhere.

[Anonymous No.10734721]

>>10734704
Exactly.

[Anonymous No.10734726]

>>10734718
There's literally no difference.

[Anonymous No.10734740]

>>10734718
there's no difference between the "division symbol" and fraction you low iq pre schooler

[Anonymous No.10734742]

>>10734726
A fraction is a number. A division is an operation, you missing link motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.10734751]

>>10734740
You ever get the feeling you're talking to an ape throwing shit on a keyboard? No? Of course you don't because you're an ape throwing shit on a keyboard.
Read >>10734742.

[Anonymous No.10734763]

>>10734742
Other uses for fractions are to represent ratios and division.[1] Thus the fraction
3
/
4
is also used to represent the ratio 3:4 (the ratio of the part to the whole) and the division 3 ÷ 4 (three divided by four).


probably talking to a middle schooler rn

[Anonymous No.10734775]

>>10734763
Ok, sure buddy, and while we're at it lets use x as the multiplication symbol as well. No difference between that an * am I right? Separate symbols exist for a reason you brainlet. You're not going to see 1:3 + 2:3 = 1:1 any time soon now fuck off back to primary school where you got this shit from.

[Anonymous No.10734784]

>>10734775
>You're not going to see 1:3 + 2:3 = 1:1 any time soon now fuck off back to primary school where you got this shit from.

but that's how you can write it as well, wh*Teoid

[Anonymous No.10734807]

>>10734784
Maybe in india where they need to conserve the holy cow shit they use to paint "maths" on the walls but not in countries with a space program, buddy.

[Anonymous No.10734838]

>>10734632
>>>/g/

>>10734660
6x/2y

If you take 6x and 2y as your terms then the expression is equivalent to (3x)/y but if you take each item as it's own term then it's equivalent to 3xy. Parentheses would remove this ambiguity, but usually the context makes it clear enough.

[Anonymous No.10734847]

>>10734838
Everyone knows 3x implies 3(x) and 2y implies 2(y).

[Anonymous No.10734861]

>>10734847
Correct, just as 3ab implies (3)(a)(b) and (3a)(b) and (a)(3b) and (3ab) and ba3. My opinion is that all "ambiguity" in math is either the author being lazy or the reader failing to follow directions

[Anonymous No.10734869]

>>10734861
I don't think I've ever even seen an example of ambiguity. As long as you follow the rules it's correct. If the answer isn't what the author intended then he's a retard and all his papers should be burned to save the few braincells our collective society has left.

[Anonymous No.10734883]

> try explaining why one operator tree is better than the other one
> fail
> but muh PEMDAS

[Anonymous No.10734894]

I know this is a bait thread but I’ll just leave this here

[Anonymous No.10734899]

>>10734869
That's why I made this post
>>10734419
But I decided to make a small concession for bad authors and highschool dropouts

[Anonymous No.10734901]

>>10734894
wow what a definitive source! ezmathdoneright.com says it it must be true! you surely have a high iq!

[Anonymous No.10734904]

>>10734883
The bottom one would require parentheses in the expression

[Anonymous No.10734905]

>>10730370
Mathematical notation is a language and like any language it has conventions people use in order to transmit ideas clearly. PEMDAS is an example of such a convention. Ultimately, getting into arguments over this shit is equivalent to getting into arguments over an Oxford comma -- only pedantic brainlets and pretentious hipsters do it.

[Anonymous No.10734908]

>>10730370
>posts ambiguous question
How about fixing that notation up and I'll answer it for you.

[Anonymous No.10734913]

>>10734838
Taken literally, it is (6xy)/2. It's not ambiguous. It never means 6x/(2y).

[Anonymous No.10734931]

>>10734913
It's more ambiguous than the OP and we're having a whole thread about which of two answers that expression evaluates to. I also don't feel like it's ambiguous, but there are some dumb fucking people out there.

[Anonymous No.10735892]

>>10732714
36x1x1
38 is the next door because its number is pair
It seems to work because 36 is the oldest but I can't say I'm still talking about a child

[Anonymous No.10735918]

>>10730370
Jesus fucking add the 1+2 inside the parenthesis then you go from left to right.

>original problem. 6/2(1+2)
>6/2(3)
>6/2 = 3
>3(3)
>3 * 3 = 9
>9

Jesus christ any other answer in this thread, other than 9, need to go back to school.

[Anonymous No.10735926]

>>10734718
>enter "/" in calculator
>shows a division symbol.

Idiot.

[Anonymous No.10736032]

>>10730398
Impressive.