Poll: 6÷2(1+2)

6/2(1+2) = ?

  • 9

    Votes: 516 68.9%

  • 1

    Votes: 233 31.1%
  • Total voters
    749
Hatter The Mad said:
That's wrong. There is only one correct answer when following the standard order of operations, and that is 9.
Click to expand...
There's no point any more, really. You say we shouldn't cling to what we were told when we were young about BODMAS (you also had an example about electrons, but my knowledge of physics is very limited so I cannot comment), but here I am telling you that since multiplication of real numbers is associative and commutative the order you decide to do it is redundant and all I get back is "standard order of operations".
 
Morba said:
As there is no operator in 2(2+1) people are assuming you do the whole thing to work out the bracket. In reality you don't, it's 2x(2+1), so 2x3. In the whole equation this would not = 6 as the division is first, making it 3x3.

Unless I'm doing something wrong, which is possible :D
Click to expand...

you're forgetting to do the division before multiplication
 
Killerkebab said:
the order you decide to do it is redundant and all I get back is "standard order of operations"
Click to expand...
How is the order redundant? If you want to get 1, parse it right-to-left (the wrong way):

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

If you want to get 9, the right answer, parse it left-to-right (the right way, the way specified by the standard order of operations).

1) 6/2(3)
2) 3(3)
3) = 9

Again, how is the order redundant? I've just shown that it is pretty much the only reason why people have been getting the wrong answer.
 
vonhelmet said:
I would contend that the rules are redundant, when such an expression will never arise in real life, outside of an exam.
Click to expand...

This is simply untrue.

When programming why would I waste my time writing superfluous brackets?

6/2*3 = 9
(6/2)*3 = 9

Both process exactly the same way. Why make extra work for myself?
 
Way i do it is;

Inner is two stages - (1+2)

Each stage is (x) by outside, outside*(1), outside*(2).

This was how i was taught.

Sum; 6/2(1+2)

Math; 6/2*1=3 then you have, 6/2*2=6

Result; 6+3=9
 
Hatter The Mad said:
How is the order redundant? If you want to get 1, parse it right-to-left (the wrong way):

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

If you want to get 9, the right answer, parse it left-to-right (the right way, the way specified by the standard order of operations).

1) 6/2(3)
2) 3(3)
3) = 9
Click to expand...
The order is redundant. You get different answers because the problem isn't written properly. When you parse right to left you multiply by 1/3, when you parse left to right you multiply by 3.

This isn't a case of the "order of operations". This is a case of doing two completely different things. I will make this bold and in capitals this time, just to be sure:
MULTIPLICATION OF REAL NUMBERS IS BOTH COMMUTATIVE AND ASSOCIATIVE
 
Killerkebab said:
The order is redundant. You get different answers because the problem isn't written properly. When you parse right to left you multiply by 1/3, when you parse left to right you multiply by 3.

This isn't a case of the "order of operations". This is a case of doing two completely different things. I will make this bold and in capitals this time, just to be sure:
MULTIPLICATION OF REAL NUMBERS IS BOTH COMMUTATIVE AND ASSOCIATIVE
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the Real numbers, it is simply a matter of notation. The notation is very unambiguous as nobody ever parses right to left.
 
obviosuly casio IS wrong, to end the thread


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

i would have also got a 9 without a calculator, they way it is written it IS 9

but then again maybe in the casio's manual it has instructions on how to write down a formula properly
 
Last edited:
yeymaths.png


Please don't kill me :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom