Current Events > 6÷2(1+2)=?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 4:19:50 PM #102:	Parentheses don't have to be solved first. --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913957830] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>Parentheses don't have to be solved first.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
polopili 12/11/18 4:21:27 PM #103:	Tyranthraxus posted... polopili posted... When you stick a number in front of a parentheses like that without an operand, you're supposed to treat it first after the inside of parentheses. How are people this bad at math Where did things go so wrong? "Always parentheses first, then exponents. Oh unless you have a regular number outside a parentheses in which case do whatever the fuck you want. Distribute them first for all anyone cares. Nobody said Parentheses had to be resolved first." You're supposed to make the parentheses disappear before doing the divison. 62(1+2) 62(3) 3(3) 9 makes you do the divisions while the parentheses are still there. <cite>polopili posted [p:913957905] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>polopili posted...</cite> <quote>When you stick a number in front of a parentheses like that without an operand, you're supposed to treat it first after the inside of parentheses.</quote> How are people this bad at math Where did things go so wrong? "Always parentheses first, then exponents. Oh unless you have a regular number outside a parentheses in which case do whatever the fuck you want. Distribute them first for all anyone cares. Nobody said Parentheses had to be resolved first."</quote> You're supposed to make the parentheses disappear before doing the divison. 62(1+2) 62(3) 3(3) 9 makes you do the divisions while the parentheses are still there.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 4:23:13 PM #104:	It literally doesn't matter what order you do the parentheses in so long as you treat everything inside uniform. --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913958023] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>It literally doesn't matter what order you do the parentheses in so long as you treat everything inside uniform.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
polopili 12/11/18 4:25:15 PM #105:	P4wn4g3 posted... It literally doesn't matter what order you do the parentheses in so long as you treat everything inside uniform. Wrong. You're supposed to make them disappear, that what ''treating parentheses first'' means. <cite>polopili posted [p:913958140] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote>It literally doesn't matter what order you do the parentheses in so long as you treat everything inside uniform.</quote> Wrong. You're supposed to make them disappear, that what ''treating parentheses first'' means.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
markconigliaro 12/11/18 4:26:34 PM #106:	polopili posted... Tyranthraxus posted... polopili posted... When you stick a number in front of a parentheses like that without an operand, you're supposed to treat it first after the inside of parentheses. How are people this bad at math Where did things go so wrong? "Always parentheses first, then exponents. Oh unless you have a regular number outside a parentheses in which case do whatever the fuck you want. Distribute them first for all anyone cares. Nobody said Parentheses had to be resolved first." You're supposed to make the parentheses disappear before doing the divison. 62(1+2) 62(3) 3(3) 9 makes you do the divisions while the parentheses are still there. 62(1+2) 623 33 9 There, parenthesis are gone. x(y) is the exact same as xy. It's just notation. Parenthesis in the order of operations says do whatever is INSIDE the parenthesis, when all that's inside the parenthesis is a single number 3, the parenthesis operation is done, time to move on. The 2 is not inside the parenthesis so you do that in the multiplication step. --- I am a juggler/prop manipulator/fire performer, here's my channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/markconigliaro <cite>markconigliaro posted [p:913958218] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>polopili posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>polopili posted...</cite> <quote>When you stick a number in front of a parentheses like that without an operand, you're supposed to treat it first after the inside of parentheses.</quote> How are people this bad at math Where did things go so wrong? "Always parentheses first, then exponents. Oh unless you have a regular number outside a parentheses in which case do whatever the fuck you want. Distribute them first for all anyone cares. Nobody said Parentheses had to be resolved first."</quote> You're supposed to make the parentheses disappear before doing the divison. 62(1+2) 62(3) 3(3) 9 makes you do the divisions while the parentheses are still there.</quote> 62(1+2) 623 33 9 There, parenthesis are gone. x(y) is the exact same as xy. It's just notation. Parenthesis in the order of operations says do whatever is INSIDE the parenthesis, when all that's inside the parenthesis is a single number 3, the parenthesis operation is done, time to move on. The 2 is not inside the parenthesis so you do that in the multiplication step.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 4:33:24 PM #107:	polopili posted... P4wn4g3 posted... It literally doesn't matter what order you do the parentheses in so long as you treat everything inside uniform. Wrong. You're supposed to make them disappear, that what ''treating parentheses first'' means. Do the math, you'll see I'm right. --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913958604] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>polopili posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote>It literally doesn't matter what order you do the parentheses in so long as you treat everything inside uniform.</quote> Wrong. You're supposed to make them disappear, that what ''treating parentheses first'' means.</quote> Do the math, you'll see I'm right.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
polopili 12/11/18 4:38:10 PM #108:	markconigliaro posted... polopili posted... Tyranthraxus posted... polopili posted... When you stick a number in front of a parentheses like that without an operand, you're supposed to treat it first after the inside of parentheses. How are people this bad at math Where did things go so wrong? "Always parentheses first, then exponents. Oh unless you have a regular number outside a parentheses in which case do whatever the fuck you want. Distribute them first for all anyone cares. Nobody said Parentheses had to be resolved first." You're supposed to make the parentheses disappear before doing the divison. 62(1+2) 62(3) 3(3) 9 makes you do the divisions while the parentheses are still there. 62(1+2) 623 33 9 There, parenthesis are gone. x(y) is the exact same as xy. It's just notation. Parenthesis in the order of operations says do whatever is INSIDE the parenthesis, when all that's inside the parenthesis is a single number 3, the parenthesis operation is done, time to move on. The 2 is not inside the parenthesis so you do that in the multiplication step. This part is meant to be interpreted that it multiplies the parentheses, otherwise why not add a in front? <cite>polopili posted [p:913958864] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>markconigliaro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>polopili posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>polopili posted...</cite> <quote>When you stick a number in front of a parentheses like that without an operand, you're supposed to treat it first after the inside of parentheses.</quote> How are people this bad at math Where did things go so wrong? "Always parentheses first, then exponents. Oh unless you have a regular number outside a parentheses in which case do whatever the fuck you want. Distribute them first for all anyone cares. Nobody said Parentheses had to be resolved first."</quote> You're supposed to make the parentheses disappear before doing the divison. 62(1+2) 62(3) 3(3) 9 makes you do the divisions while the parentheses are still there.</quote> 62(1+2) 623 33 9 There, parenthesis are gone. x(y) is the exact same as xy. It's just notation. Parenthesis in the order of operations says do whatever is INSIDE the parenthesis, when all that's inside the parenthesis is a single number 3, the parenthesis operation is done, time to move on. The 2 is not inside the parenthesis so you do that in the multiplication step.</quote> This part is meant to be interpreted that it multiplies the parentheses, otherwise why not add a in front?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 12/11/18 4:41:53 PM #109:	polopili posted... This part is meant to be interpreted that it multiplies the parentheses, otherwise why not add a * in front? It's shorthand. 3(3) and 33 are equivalent statements. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:913959087] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>polopili posted...</cite> <quote>This part is meant to be interpreted that it multiplies the parentheses, otherwise why not add a in front?</quote> It's shorthand. 3(3) and 3*3 are equivalent statements.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DoGCyN 12/11/18 4:42:13 PM #110:	Great topic. ~~answer is still 9~~ --- --- <cite>DoGCyN posted [p:913959110] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>Great topic. answer is still 9</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
markconigliaro 12/11/18 4:45:00 PM #111:	polopili posted... This part is meant to be interpreted that it multiplies the parentheses, otherwise why not add a * in front? Sure 62(1+2) 623 33 9 These are just different ways to write the same thing. There is no interpreting anything, they're all exactly the same. As for why not add an , because it does literally nothing but make the equation longer. Like I can write (1+4)+(5+2), but why? That's unnecessary padding to the equation, just write 1+4+5+2, same thing. --- I am a juggler/prop manipulator/fire performer, here's my channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/markconigliaro <cite>markconigliaro posted [p:913959256] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>polopili posted...</cite> <quote>This part is meant to be interpreted that it multiplies the parentheses, otherwise why not add a * in front?</quote> Sure 62(1+2) 623 33 9 These are just different ways to write the same thing. There is no interpreting anything, they're all exactly the same. As for why not add an , because it does literally nothing but make the equation longer. Like I can write (1+4)+(5+2), but why? That's unnecessary padding to the equation, just write 1+4+5+2, same thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The-Apostle 12/11/18 4:59:52 PM #112:	I got 9 just by looking at the problem. >_> --- http://goo.gl/mnO36O #GoPackGo Not changing sig until NHL players are allowed to play in the Olympics. Started 2/22/2018 <cite>The-Apostle posted [p:913960096] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>I got 9 just by looking at the problem. >_></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 12/11/18 5:00:39 PM #113:	Alright, 100+ posts. You guys really can't help yourselves at all. --- https://imgur.com/VeNBg https://imgur.com/gd5jC8q https://imgur.com/PKIy7 https://imgur.com/3p29JqP <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:913960136] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>Alright, 100+ posts. You guys really can't help yourselves at all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kineth 12/11/18 5:02:39 PM #114:	Tyranthraxus posted... polopili posted... This part is meant to be interpreted that it multiplies the parentheses, otherwise why not add a * in front? It's shorthand. 3(3) and 33 are equivalent statements. Yeah, well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point, especially considering the original number you're trying to orphan it from is 1/2 and not simply 2. --- "I don't think anyone seriously thinks that Trump supporters orgasm when they see racism in the news." - Me, reassuring Ammonitida <cite>Kineth posted [p:913960248] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>polopili posted...</cite> <quote>This part is meant to be interpreted that it multiplies the parentheses, otherwise why not add a in front?</quote> It's shorthand. 3(3) and 3*3 are equivalent statements.</quote> Yeah, well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point, especially considering the original number you're trying to orphan it from is 1/2 and not simply 2.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 5:08:03 PM #115:	Kineth posted... well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify. --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913960509] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kineth posted...</cite> <quote>well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point</quote> This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
polopili 12/11/18 5:30:06 PM #116:	Although there are no conventions for a badly written formula like that, it is not commonly simply shorthand to . Putting a number in front of a parentheses or a variable means you should treat it like multiplicative constant. Once you start doing more complex math, it is absolutely needed to avoid putting parentheses and brackets everywhere. Let's say we replace 3 inside the parentheses with an x variable. You say 32x would result in (3x)/2 since not putting a sign is the same as ? Just like a/bc does not result in (a/b)c. <cite>polopili posted [p:913961680] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>Although there are no conventions for a badly written formula like that, it is not commonly simply shorthand to . Putting a number in front of a parentheses or a variable means you should treat it like multiplicative constant. Once you start doing more complex math, it is absolutely needed to avoid putting parentheses and brackets everywhere. Let's say we replace 3 inside the parentheses with an x variable. You say 32x would result in (3x)/2 since not putting a * sign is the same as *? Just like a/bc does not result in (a/b)c.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 5:33:04 PM #117:	polopili posted... Just like a/bc does not result in (a/b)c. a/bc isn't necessarily a/(bc) --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913961844] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>polopili posted...</cite> <quote>Just like a/bc does not result in (a/b)c.</quote> a/bc isn't necessarily a/(bc)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 12/11/18 5:43:51 PM #118:	P4wn4g3 posted... Kineth posted... well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify. Rewrite all division as multiplication of reciprocal, rewrite all subtraction as addition of the negated value and you will always arrive at the right answer --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:913962356] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kineth posted...</cite> <quote>well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point</quote> This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify.</quote> Rewrite all division as multiplication of reciprocal, rewrite all subtraction as addition of the negated value and you will always arrive at the right answer</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 5:45:44 PM #119:	Tyranthraxus posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Kineth posted... well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify. Rewrite all division as multiplication of reciprocal, rewrite all subtraction as addition of the negated value and you will always arrive at the right answer You can make an argument for 9 or 1 being right. 9 would likely be accepted by majority, but this equation wouldn't fly in actual mathematics. --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913962448] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kineth posted...</cite> <quote>well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point</quote> This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify.</quote> Rewrite all division as multiplication of reciprocal, rewrite all subtraction as addition of the negated value and you will always arrive at the right answer</quote> You can make an argument for 9 or 1 being right. 9 would likely be accepted by majority, but this equation wouldn't fly in actual mathematics.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 12/11/18 5:55:00 PM #120:	P4wn4g3 posted... Tyranthraxus posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Kineth posted... well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify. Rewrite all division as multiplication of reciprocal, rewrite all subtraction as addition of the negated value and you will always arrive at the right answer You can make an argument for 9 or 1 being right. 9 would likely be accepted by majority, but this equation wouldn't fly in actual mathematics. You are straight wrong. It's a valid algebraic equation and has only one answer -- 9 --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:913962942] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kineth posted...</cite> <quote>well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point</quote> This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify.</quote> Rewrite all division as multiplication of reciprocal, rewrite all subtraction as addition of the negated value and you will always arrive at the right answer</quote> You can make an argument for 9 or 1 being right. 9 would likely be accepted by majority, but this equation wouldn't fly in actual mathematics.</quote> You are straight wrong. It's a valid algebraic equation and has only one answer -- 9</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 5:56:25 PM #121:	Tyranthraxus posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Tyranthraxus posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Kineth posted... well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify. Rewrite all division as multiplication of reciprocal, rewrite all subtraction as addition of the negated value and you will always arrive at the right answer You can make an argument for 9 or 1 being right. 9 would likely be accepted by majority, but this equation wouldn't fly in actual mathematics. You are straight wrong. It's a valid algebraic equation and has only one answer -- 9 Refer to Anteater's earlier points about the usage of the division symbol. --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913963019] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kineth posted...</cite> <quote>well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point</quote> This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify.</quote> Rewrite all division as multiplication of reciprocal, rewrite all subtraction as addition of the negated value and you will always arrive at the right answer</quote> You can make an argument for 9 or 1 being right. 9 would likely be accepted by majority, but this equation wouldn't fly in actual mathematics.</quote> You are straight wrong. It's a valid algebraic equation and has only one answer -- 9</quote> Refer to Anteater's earlier points about the usage of the division symbol.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 12/11/18 5:57:36 PM #122:	P4wn4g3 posted... Tyranthraxus posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Tyranthraxus posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Kineth posted... well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify. Rewrite all division as multiplication of reciprocal, rewrite all subtraction as addition of the negated value and you will always arrive at the right answer You can make an argument for 9 or 1 being right. 9 would likely be accepted by majority, but this equation wouldn't fly in actual mathematics. You are straight wrong. It's a valid algebraic equation and has only one answer -- 9 Refer to Anteater's earlier points about the usage of the division symbol. Refer to Wolfram Alpha --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:913963082] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kineth posted...</cite> <quote>well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point</quote> This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify.</quote> Rewrite all division as multiplication of reciprocal, rewrite all subtraction as addition of the negated value and you will always arrive at the right answer</quote> You can make an argument for 9 or 1 being right. 9 would likely be accepted by majority, but this equation wouldn't fly in actual mathematics.</quote> You are straight wrong. It's a valid algebraic equation and has only one answer -- 9</quote> Refer to Anteater's earlier points about the usage of the division symbol.</quote> Refer to Wolfram Alpha</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 5:59:33 PM #123:	Tyranthraxus posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Tyranthraxus posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Tyranthraxus posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Kineth posted... well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify. Rewrite all division as multiplication of reciprocal, rewrite all subtraction as addition of the negated value and you will always arrive at the right answer You can make an argument for 9 or 1 being right. 9 would likely be accepted by majority, but this equation wouldn't fly in actual mathematics. You are straight wrong. It's a valid algebraic equation and has only one answer -- 9 Refer to Anteater's earlier points about the usage of the division symbol. Refer to Wolfram Alpha As I said, it would be the more widely accepted answer. It's what I argued earlier after all. --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913963186] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kineth posted...</cite> <quote>well the quantity is 1/3 if you're gonna treat it as a separate number at that point</quote> This is the problem with the question posed. The division symbol doesn't inherently state whether order of operations applies, which means it could be 1/3 or it could be 3. So TC would need to clarify.</quote> Rewrite all division as multiplication of reciprocal, rewrite all subtraction as addition of the negated value and you will always arrive at the right answer</quote> You can make an argument for 9 or 1 being right. 9 would likely be accepted by majority, but this equation wouldn't fly in actual mathematics.</quote> You are straight wrong. It's a valid algebraic equation and has only one answer -- 9</quote> Refer to Anteater's earlier points about the usage of the division symbol.</quote> Refer to Wolfram Alpha</quote> As I said, it would be the more widely accepted answer. It's what I argued earlier after all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The-Apostle 12/11/18 6:00:12 PM #124:	Anything other than 9 would be wrong on a test. --- http://goo.gl/mnO36O #GoPackGo Not changing sig until NHL players are allowed to play in the Olympics. Started 2/22/2018 <cite>The-Apostle posted [p:913963217] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>Anything other than 9 would be wrong on a test.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Medussa 12/11/18 6:07:43 PM #125:	The-Apostle posted... Anything other than 9 would be wrong on a test. this would never appear on a test, because it's not real syntax. it's been engineered to get the exact argument this thread had provided. --- Boom! That's right, this is all happening! You cannot change the channel now! Act now! Venchmen are standing by for your orders! <cite>Medussa posted [p:913963540] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>The-Apostle posted...</cite> <quote>Anything other than 9 would be wrong on a test.</quote> this would never appear on a test, because it's not real syntax. it's been engineered to get the exact argument this thread had provided.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 12/11/18 6:10:21 PM #126:	Medussa posted... The-Apostle posted... Anything other than 9 would be wrong on a test. this would never appear on a test, because it's not real syntax. it's been engineered to get the exact argument this thread had provided. It absolutely would appear on a test if it was testing your understanding of OOO --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:913963657] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Medussa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The-Apostle posted...</cite> <quote>Anything other than 9 would be wrong on a test.</quote> this would never appear on a test, because it's not real syntax. it's been engineered to get the exact argument this thread had provided.</quote> It absolutely would appear on a test if it was testing your understanding of OOO</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 6:12:04 PM #127:	Tyranthraxus posted... Medussa posted... The-Apostle posted... Anything other than 9 would be wrong on a test. this would never appear on a test, because it's not real syntax. it's been engineered to get the exact argument this thread had provided. It absolutely would appear on a test if it was testing your understanding of OOO No, division would be represented with / on a test. --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913963736] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Medussa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The-Apostle posted...</cite> <quote>Anything other than 9 would be wrong on a test.</quote> this would never appear on a test, because it's not real syntax. it's been engineered to get the exact argument this thread had provided.</quote> It absolutely would appear on a test if it was testing your understanding of OOO</quote> No, division would be represented with / on a test.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
yoshifan1 12/11/18 6:18:56 PM #128:	62(1+2)= 9 Syntactically, it is identical to 6 / 2 x (1 + 2). Only operations within the parenthesis are part of the group. When multiply a number against a group in parenthesis, the multiplication sign can be omitted as it is implied. For example, 6 x 3, 6(3), 3(6), and (6)(3) are all the same syntactically. Then when all groups are solved the next step is exponents, left to right, then multiplication and division left to right with the two operations having the same priority, and finally addition and subtraction left to right with again the two operations having the same priority. --- Sandwiches are made with bread. <cite>yoshifan1 posted [p:913964072] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>62(1+2)= 9 Syntactically, it is identical to 6 / 2 x (1 + 2). Only operations within the parenthesis are part of the group. When multiply a number against a group in parenthesis, the multiplication sign can be omitted as it is implied. For example, 6 x 3, 6(3), 3(6), and (6)(3) are all the same syntactically. Then when all groups are solved the next step is exponents, left to right, then multiplication and division left to right with the two operations having the same priority, and finally addition and subtraction left to right with again the two operations having the same priority.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kinny100 12/11/18 6:20:01 PM #129:	7 people explain yourselves --- https://imgur.com/riPcH <cite>Kinny100 posted [p:913964128] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>7 people explain yourselves</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KobeSystem 12/11/18 6:20:26 PM #130:	KobeSystem posted... Anyone who thinks it's not 9 should probably be wearing a waterproof wristwatch calculator at all times --- http://www.last.fm/user/KobeSystem92 \| https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/725087214401671170/02UGgybe_400x400.jpg WIN SEXANGELS GREATKERZ <cite>KobeSystem posted [p:913964153] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>KobeSystem posted...</cite> <quote>Anyone who thinks it's not 9 should probably be wearing a waterproof wristwatch calculator at all times</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 12/11/18 6:22:40 PM #131:	yoshifan1 posted... Syntactically, it is identical to 6 / 2 x (1 + 2). Only if you take that as your convention. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:913964263] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>yoshifan1 posted...</cite> <quote>Syntactically, it is identical to 6 / 2 x (1 + 2).</quote> Only if you take that as your convention.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 12/11/18 6:23:05 PM #132:	I can see how people would accidentally get 1. I don't see how they're getting 7. --- Who is? I am! <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:913964279] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>I can see how people would accidentally get 1. I don't see how they're getting 7.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mobile_jukester 12/11/18 6:24:16 PM #133:	A_Good_Boy posted... I can see how people would accidentally get 1. I don't see how they're getting 7. Youre on CE, bro. --- Let's go Red Sox! jukester <cite>mobile_jukester posted [p:913964320] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>I can see how people would accidentally get 1. I don't see how they're getting 7.</quote> Youre on CE, bro.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 6:32:19 PM #134:	Kinny100 posted... 7 people explain yourselves First solve this --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913964702] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kinny100 posted...</cite> <quote>7 people explain yourselves</quote> First solve this </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 12/11/18 6:35:05 PM #135:	P4wn4g3 posted... Kinny100 posted... 7 people explain yourselves First solve this An equation with three variables has infinite solutions. You require 1 unique equation per variable to arrive at a single solution. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:913964825] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kinny100 posted...</cite> <quote>7 people explain yourselves</quote> First solve this </quote> An equation with three variables has infinite solutions. You require 1 unique equation per variable to arrive at a single solution.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 6:37:41 PM #136:	Tyranthraxus posted... require 1 unique equation per variable to arrive at a single solution. there's a real answer to this. --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913964925] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote> require 1 unique equation per variable to arrive at a single solution. </quote> there's a real answer to this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Life Sympathy 12/11/18 6:37:55 PM #137:	Uncaught TypeError: 2 is not a function at <anonymous>:1:4 --- We're surrounding you. We see you, but you probably don't see us. And if you see us, we're not letting on that we see you. <cite>Life Sympathy posted [p:913964935] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>Uncaught TypeError: 2 is not a function at <anonymous>:1:4</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Medussa 12/11/18 6:38:56 PM #138:	Tyranthraxus posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Kinny100 posted... 7 people explain yourselves First solve this An equation with three variables has infinite solutions. You require 1 unique equation per variable to arrive at a single solution. since it limits the variables to positive integers, it might have a unique solution (or be another troll question and not have one at all). but I don't think it can be solved mathematically, only brute-forced. --- Boom! That's right, this is all happening! You cannot change the channel now! Act now! Venchmen are standing by for your orders! <cite>Medussa posted [p:913964977] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kinny100 posted...</cite> <quote>7 people explain yourselves</quote> First solve this </quote> An equation with three variables has infinite solutions. You require 1 unique equation per variable to arrive at a single solution.</quote> since it limits the variables to positive integers, it might have a unique solution (or be another troll question and not have one at all). but I don't think it can be solved mathematically, only brute-forced.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ohnoitschris 12/11/18 6:40:09 PM #139:	--- Join the Nintendo Fun Club today, Mac! <cite>ohnoitschris posted [p:913965048] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 6:40:21 PM #140:	Medussa posted... Tyranthraxus posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Kinny100 posted... 7 people explain yourselves First solve this An equation with three variables has infinite solutions. You require 1 unique equation per variable to arrive at a single solution. since it limits the variables to positive integers, it might have a unique solution (or be another troll question and not have one at all). but I don't think it can be solved mathematically, only brute-forced. It can be. --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913965058] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Medussa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kinny100 posted...</cite> <quote>7 people explain yourselves</quote> First solve this </quote> An equation with three variables has infinite solutions. You require 1 unique equation per variable to arrive at a single solution.</quote> since it limits the variables to positive integers, it might have a unique solution (or be another troll question and not have one at all). but I don't think it can be solved mathematically, only brute-forced.</quote> It can be.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Medussa 12/11/18 6:41:23 PM #141:	P4wn4g3 posted... It can be. i'll take your word for it. because if it'll take what I think it'll take, I don't wanna. that's nasty. --- Boom! That's right, this is all happening! You cannot change the channel now! Act now! Venchmen are standing by for your orders! <cite>Medussa posted [p:913965105] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote>It can be.</quote> i'll take your word for it. because if it'll take what I think it'll take, I don't wanna. that's nasty.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 12/11/18 6:44:01 PM #142:	This damn topic is why America sucks at math. Order of operations is an arbitrary rule to keep people on the same page. That's it. It doesn't do anything for your math skills. People over obsess over it. --- If you're going through hell, keep going. -Winston Churchill <cite>Squall28 posted [p:913965226] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>This damn topic is why America sucks at math. Order of operations is an arbitrary rule to keep people on the same page. That's it. It doesn't do anything for your math skills. People over obsess over it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 6:45:25 PM #143:	Squall28 posted... This damn topic is why America sucks at math. Order of operations is an arbitrary rule to keep people on the same page. That's it. It doesn't do anything for your math skills. People over obsess over it. technically all of math is arbitrary rules to keep people on the same page. that's the exact idea behind it. --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913965281] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>This damn topic is why America sucks at math. Order of operations is an arbitrary rule to keep people on the same page. That's it. It doesn't do anything for your math skills. People over obsess over it.</quote> technically all of math is arbitrary rules to keep people on the same page. that's the exact idea behind it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kinny100 12/11/18 6:48:44 PM #144:	P4wn4g3 posted... Kinny100 posted... 7 people explain yourselves First solve this go f yourself troll. this is a phd level problem. if we're limited to +integers, the answers are: apple = 15447680210874616 6441951315019919837485664325669565431700026 634898253202035277999 banana = 368751317941299998271 9781156522547482549297996897197099628313 7471637224634055579 pineapple = 43736126779286972 5786125260237139015281653755816161361862143799 3378423467772036 https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-find-the-positive-integer-solutions-to-frac-x-y+z-+-frac-y-z+x-+-frac-z-x+y-4/answer/Alon-Amit https://plus.google.com/+johncbaez999/posts/Pr8LgYYxvbM --- https://imgur.com/riPcH <cite>Kinny100 posted [p:913965429] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kinny100 posted...</cite> <quote>7 people explain yourselves</quote> First solve this </quote> go f yourself troll. this is a phd level problem. if we're limited to +integers, the answers are: apple = 15447680210874616 6441951315019919837485664325669565431700026 634898253202035277999 banana = 368751317941299998271 9781156522547482549297996897197099628313 7471637224634055579 pineapple = 43736126779286972 5786125260237139015281653755816161361862143799 3378423467772036 https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-find-the-positive-integer-solutions-to-frac-x-y+z-+-frac-y-z+x-+-frac-z-x+y-4/answer/Alon-Amit https://plus.google.com/+johncbaez999/posts/Pr8LgYYxvbM</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
zachflash 12/11/18 6:51:10 PM #145:	I got 1. Would love to ask my math teachers in the past this question, since it's been so long, lol. --- Philippians 4:13- "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1242-mount-zion (Christian Community Board) <cite>zachflash posted [p:913965538] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>I got 1. Would love to ask my math teachers in the past this question, since it's been so long, lol. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 12/11/18 6:51:28 PM #146:	Kinny100 posted... P4wn4g3 posted... Kinny100 posted... 7 people explain yourselves First solve this go f yourself troll. this is a phd level problem. if we're limited to +integers, the answers are: apple = 15447680210874616 6441951315019919837485664325669565431700026 634898253202035277999 banana = 368751317941299998271 9781156522547482549297996897197099628313 7471637224634055579 pineapple = 43736126779286972 5786125260237139015281653755816161361862143799 3378423467772036 https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-find-the-positive-integer-solutions-to-frac-x-y+z-+-frac-y-z+x-+-frac-z-x+y-4/answer/Alon-Amit https://plus.google.com/+johncbaez999/posts/Pr8LgYYxvbM y so salty --- 7D ChessMaster of Dark Aether https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:913965549] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kinny100 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kinny100 posted...</cite> <quote>7 people explain yourselves</quote> First solve this </quote> go f yourself troll. this is a phd level problem. if we're limited to +integers, the answers are: apple = 15447680210874616 6441951315019919837485664325669565431700026 634898253202035277999 banana = 368751317941299998271 9781156522547482549297996897197099628313 7471637224634055579 pineapple = 43736126779286972 5786125260237139015281653755816161361862143799 3378423467772036 https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-find-the-positive-integer-solutions-to-frac-x-y+z-+-frac-y-z+x-+-frac-z-x+y-4/answer/Alon-Amit https://plus.google.com/+johncbaez999/posts/Pr8LgYYxvbM</quote> y so salty</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kinny100 12/11/18 6:52:06 PM #147:	y so 7 --- https://imgur.com/riPcH <cite>Kinny100 posted [p:913965574] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>y so 7</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 12/11/18 6:52:50 PM #148:	Tyranthraxus posted... An equation with three variables has infinite solutions. You require 1 unique equation per variable to arrive at a single solution. Domain --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:913965605] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>An equation with three variables has infinite solutions. You require 1 unique equation per variable to arrive at a single solution.</quote> Domain</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MarqueeSeries 12/11/18 7:27:17 PM #149:	P4wn4g3 posted... (1+2) is not in the denominator by any indicated operator in this equation. I'm not sure why you are putting it there. Yeah it is. 2(1+3) is all one term, and it's the denominator --- Posted with GameRaven 3.5.1 <cite>MarqueeSeries posted [p:913967315] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote>(1+2) is not in the denominator by any indicated operator in this equation. I'm not sure why you are putting it there.</quote> Yeah it is. 2(1+3) is all one term, and it's the denominator</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FL81 12/11/18 7:39:53 PM #150:	I'm actually having difficulty trying to figure out how anyone could possibly arrive at 7 as an answer here ~~the correct answer is 9 btw~~ --- https://imgtc.com/i/uBYqPMK.gif https://imgtc.com/i/UAGNJFv.gif https://imgtc.com/i/cBTnWgf.png https://imgtc.com/i/wdjM3F8.png <cite>FL81 posted [p:913967855] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote>I'm actually having difficulty trying to figure out how anyone could possibly arrive at 7 as an answer here the correct answer is 9 btw</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 12/11/18 7:44:04 PM #151:	zachflash posted... I got 1. Would love to ask my math teachers in the past this question, since it's been so long, lol. You didn't even copy the original problem down correctly ffs --- Who is? I am! <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:913968043] in 6÷2... [t:77292057]...</cite> <quote><cite>zachflash posted...</cite> <quote>I got 1. Would love to ask my math teachers in the past this question, since it's been so long, lol. </quote> You didn't even copy the original problem down correctly ffs</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Current Events > 6÷2(1+2)=? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > 6÷2(1+2)=?