Poll: 6÷2(1+2)

Vonhelmet · 29 Apr 2011 at 20:57

ordinaryjoe said:
No, that's not what I said... You can have an infinite number of 0s, but you can't then put a 1 on the end of it.

Your 2nd line is right. 0.0r1 is equal to 0.

I'm confused, given that earlier you said:

ordinaryjoe said:
0.0r1 does not exist. You can not have an infinite number of 0s before the 1 - the 1 would not exist, so it's really just 0

ordinaryjoe · 29 Apr 2011 at 21:05

vonhelmet said:
I'm confused, given that earlier you said:

You are just nitpicking.
Anyway, this is all beside the point. It either doesn't exist, or has a value of 0. Take your pick. Either way, you are wrong.

Vonhelmet · 29 Apr 2011 at 21:10

ordinaryjoe said:
You are just nitpicking.
Anyway, this is all beside the point. It either doesn't exist, or has a value of 0. Take your pick. Either way, you are wrong.

That's a truly wonderful answer, and covers off all the bases of my misunderstanding. I am now in no doubt as to the origin of my error, as you have so beautifully elucidated the origins of my mistake. My mathematical knowledge has been so enhanced by your succinct proclamation that I am wrong, and that I am nit-picking, that I am not even remotely concerned by the issue of your not having actually explained the confusion that I am facing. Tell me, at which of the great Ivy League universities do you lecture? Harvard? Princeton? I suggest that you ask for a promotion, as you are clearly being underpaid, when you are so clearly an accomplished mathematician and such an able teacher.

Pho · 29 Apr 2011 at 21:19

Found this explanation from Googling on Yahoo Answers

cool

:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110427155042AACb7d8 said:
I am your college professor that you requested, with a doctorate in Mathematics. I will break this down as simply as possible and end this debate as approx. 10 students have already asked me this today.
The problem as it is written is 6÷2(1+2) , the ÷ cannot be substituted with a fraction bar because they have different ranks on the order of operations. It is an illegal math move to do this. The bar ranks with parentheses, ÷ is interchangeable with *. therefore the problem must be solved as 6÷2(1+2) NOT 6 (over) 2(1+2) we do the parentheses first, so 6÷2(3), the parentheses are now no longer relevant, because the number inside is in it's simplest form. Every single number has implied parentheses around it.
6÷2(3)
(6) ÷(2)(3)
6÷2*3,
or even converting the division to multiplication by a reciprocal (a legal math move)
(6)(1 (over) 2)(3)
are all correct ways to write this problem and mean exactly the same thing. Using pemdas, where md and as are interchangeable, we work from left to right, so (3)(3) or
3*3= 9

Just because something is implied rather than written does not give it any special rank in the order of operations.

The problem in it's simplest form, with nothing implied would look like this:
(1+1+1+1+1+1 (over) 1) ÷ (1+1 (over) 1) * ((1(over) 1) + (1+1 (over) 1))
From here, nothing is implied, This again, works out to 9.

If the symbol '/' was used this whole debate would be ambiguous since that symbol can mean "to divide by" or it could mean a fraction bar.

HOWEVER, because the ÷ symbol is used, it can not be changed to mean a fraction bar because that would change the order of operations and thus the whole problem, you can't change a symbol to mean something because you want to, in doing so you are changing the problem.

Once and for all, the answer is 9.

Hopefully some of my students see this so I can stop answering this question.

End of debate... hopefully.
Source(s):
Doctorate, 9 years teaching experience.

I'd still have worked it out as 1 mind

.

FoxEye · 29 Apr 2011 at 21:25

vonhelmet said:
That's a truly wonderful answer, and covers off all the bases of my misunderstanding. I am now in no doubt as to the origin of my error, as you have so beautifully elucidated the origins of my mistake. My mathematical knowledge has been so enhanced by your succinct proclamation that I am wrong, and that I am nit-picking, that I am not even remotely concerned by the issue of your not having actually explained the confusion that I am facing. Tell me, at which of the great Ivy League universities do you lecture? Harvard? Princeton? I suggest that you ask for a promotion, as you are clearly being underpaid, when you are so clearly an accomplished mathematician and such an able teacher.

vonhelmet, imagine it this way.

You are standing on top of an infinitely tall building. Where are you standing? You are standing at the point where the building ends.

But wait... it's infinitely tall, so it never ends. Therefore, you can't stand on top of it. Therefore, you don't exist.

Since you don't exist, I'm not going to waste any more time replying to you

QED! (I'm j/k btw).

TheCenturion · 29 Apr 2011 at 21:35

There's no argument about this :confused:

It must be 9???

Bodmas. You do the brackets first.

That gets you to

6/2(3)

Then BODMAS says that you should do division. So you divide the 6 by the 2 to get 3. Then you have:

3(3)

Finally you do the multiplication.

3x3 = 9

ordinaryjoe · 29 Apr 2011 at 21:37

vonhelmet said:
That's a truly wonderful answer, and covers off all the bases of my misunderstanding. I am now in no doubt as to the origin of my error, as you have so beautifully elucidated the origins of my mistake. My mathematical knowledge has been so enhanced by your succinct proclamation that I am wrong, and that I am nit-picking, that I am not even remotely concerned by the issue of your not having actually explained the confusion that I am facing. Tell me, at which of the great Ivy League universities do you lecture? Harvard? Princeton? I suggest that you ask for a promotion, as you are clearly being underpaid, when you are so clearly an accomplished mathematician and such an able teacher.

I said you were nitpicking as you said:

vonhelmet said:
And yet you say that 0.0r1 is not equal to 0?

Either of the things I said disprove what you said. If 0.0r1 does exist, it is 0. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. Either way, 0.0r1 is not greater than 0.

Deadbeat · 29 Apr 2011 at 21:39

*Wanders in*

Oh, is this still happening? Huh.

*Wanders out*

shroomz · 29 Apr 2011 at 21:48

33 pages and this thread is still going? Wow, why does everyone care so much?

qqg3 · 29 Apr 2011 at 21:52

Deadbeat said:
*Wanders in*

Oh, is this still happening? Huh.

*Wanders out*

Indeed. Poll wins, the end.

ordinaryjoe · 29 Apr 2011 at 21:54

I wonder if this thread would have reached page 2 if instead the OP instead said:
6 ÷ 2 x (1+2)

dl8860 · 29 Apr 2011 at 22:07

ordinaryjoe said:
I wonder if this thread would have reached page 2 if instead the OP instead said:
6 ÷ 2 x (1+2)

So true. And that is exactly the same as the equation in question.

BetaNumeric · 29 Apr 2011 at 22:14

How many of you put in this much effort to your GCSE or A Level maths revision? Why is it threads like this, 0.9r=1 and "Will the aeroplane on the treadmill take off?" produce such a huge response but when you're presented with the opportunity to do actual maths and physics the vast majority of people (including the majority of people on forums like this) run a mile.

If you guys put in half this much effort you'd be able to learn useful mathematics, not muck around arguing about primary school level "Which order do I do this in?" nonsense.

Learn some bloody calculus instead.

RomanNose · 29 Apr 2011 at 22:19

BetaNumeric said:
How many of you put in this much effort to your GCSE or A Level maths revision? Why is it threads like this, 0.9r=1 and "Will the aeroplane on the treadmill take off?" produce such a huge response but when you're presented with the opportunity to do actual maths and physics the vast majority of people (including the majority of people on forums like this) run a mile.

If you guys put in half this much effort you'd be able to learn useful mathematics, not muck around arguing about primary school level "Which order do I do this in?" nonsense.

Learn some bloody calculus instead.

Welcome to the internet, where everyone is an expert of a subject regardless whether they passed any exams after GCSE.

dowie · 29 Apr 2011 at 22:20

wmb said:
But the equation is not presented in a CONVENTIONAL format, therefore it is AMBIGUOUS. If it was presented in a conventional way, there would be no argument one way or the other.

You miss the point - it isn't ambiguous if you follow the convention for using those operators. The answer is quite clearly 9.

One more time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDQkU1mk3Jw&feature=related

Morba · 29 Apr 2011 at 22:21

Beta - so is it 1 or 9?

Shayper · 29 Apr 2011 at 22:21

This thread has made my day! Nearly 1000 posts arguing about an ambiguity? Fantastic!

Yes I know I argued for bit, but, who cares, I'm very drunk celebrating my 19th!

dowie · 29 Apr 2011 at 22:24

ordinaryjoe said:
I wonder if this thread would have reached page 2 if instead the OP instead said:
6 ÷ 2 x (1+2)

very true

and despite 6/2(1+2) being the same equation people are assuming the denominator is 2(1+2) rather than just 2. Putting a * between the 2 and the (1+2) doesn't and shouldn't make a difference but perhaps does illustrate it better - i.e. there is an operator between the 2 and (1+2) and you'd evaluate 6/2 first (by convention) therefore the denominator should be read to be 2 and not 2(1+2).

[FnG]magnolia · 29 Apr 2011 at 22:25

[FnG]magnolia;19013370 said:
A thousand posts in this thread.

Calling it right now.

I thought I was being funny but now ...

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Castiel · 29 Apr 2011 at 22:29

[FnG]magnolia;19019092 said:
I thought I was being funny but now ...

What the hell is wrong with you people?

A thousand posts you say.......

Poll: 6÷2(1+2)

6/2(1+2) = ?

9

1