Which Calculator is correct?
ti82 as always.
Allways Casio
>>738972272
>>738972369
Let the games begin
>>738972155
The blue one.
>>738972155
Left is correct. When ambiguous, same order of priority (In this case 6/2 or 2x3 first) follows left to right priority.
Parenthesis takes priority first of course, giving us 6/2x3, and because left to right is the solution 6/2=3, 3x3=9.
TI82 master calculator.
>>738972512
/thread
>>738972155
ti for the academics and casio for the clerks and accountants
prove me wrong
These Threads are autistic
>>738972155
Casio is following the order of operations.
Also, if you turned this into a fraction where the dividing sign is, it would reduce to 1.
>>738972155
you want the result of 6/2 multiplied with the sum of (2+1).
solve the parenthesis and the division
3x3
result is 9, left is correct.
PEMDAS NIGGA
>>738972155
The casio. Multiply comes before divide.
>>738972649
We are turning it into a fraction where the dividing sign is. It then becomes 6 over 2.
That's what dividing is you mong.
6 over 2 reduces to 3. multiplied by 3 is 9.
Casio can suck my dick.
American ingenuity wins again.
>>738972680
you're not following the order of operations
>>738972819
top kek
gr8 b8 I r8 8/8
>>738972155
Those are different equations.
the casino one is doing the foil
PEMDAS
After P = 6/2*3
After E = 6/2*3
After M = 6/6
After D = 1
After A = 1
After S = 1
Dipshits.
>HURR DURR ALWAYS USE PEMDAS ANON TO DO EQUATIONS
>DURR NOOOO ANON DONT USE PEMDAS SOLVE THE EQUATION FROM LEFT TO RIGHT HURRR
This is why I hate fucking math.
>>738972649
The 2 and (2+1) would have to be in parenthesis for that to be the case. 3×3=9
The TI82 is wrong because you have to distribute the 2 outside of the parentheses. If you follow the correct order of operations this is the process:
6/2(2+1)=?
6/(4+2)=?
6/6=1
The TI82 is completely ignoring this and calculating the equation lefttoright
>>738973049
I smell summer.
As in somebody is fresh out of high school algebra at summer school.
>>738972680
literal retardation.
6/2(2+1)
6/2x3
6/6
1
Multiplication before division faggot
>>738973174
42 and been here for a long time, but close! Good guess!
Never made it through Trig tho.
>>738973049
It's:
Parentheses
Exponents
Multiplication or Division (when going left to right)
Addition or Subtraction (when going left to right)
So:
6/2(2+1)
6/2(3)
3(3)
9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URcUvFIUIhQ
6/2(2+1)
6/2x3
3x3
9
>>738972727
>Teaching us to remember how to solve equations that are written out of order
>Instead of just teaching us to write equations in order
Sasuga, education system.
>>738973263
If it's M or D, you're right, but what I was taught is M first, then D.
>>738973049
If it were PEMDAS that would be the case. But when looking at an equation M and D, and A and S have the same priority. It may as well be PEDMSA.
6/2 (2+1)
6/(4+2)
6/6=1
Autism is overwhelming
>>738972155
>Which Calculator is correct?
if youre in 6th class, then the ti is right.
if you study it or math, the casio is right, since then the equations get more comlicated.
it depends on which way to solve it you chose.
the ti sees (6\2)x(1+2) while the casio sees 6\(2x(1+2)).
so i would say the idiot who compared this doesnt understand how math or brackets work in math.
>>738973351
you were taught wrong, which is not at all surprising
>>738973144
But that's wrong dumbass. What you did was assuming the equation was written as
6/(2(2+1) which it isn't. You do PEMDAS from left to right. The TI82 did exactly that and got the right answer.
>>738972155
>Not writing 6 2 / 2 1 + *
Stay outside the master race, plebs
>>738973227
Good to hear anon, I'm sure you'll provide us a scan of your drivers license to verify that. Unless you're still working on your permit. Which you are. Because you're 16 and shouldn't be here.
>>738973353
Fucking thank you I was just making along fucking reply explaining this but you shortened it for me....seriously thank you
>>738973394
Also this guy is the most correct
>>738973537
>urging him to post his ID so you can roast on his looks and derail the thread
gg
>>738973049
E stands for exponentiation dumbass. 2*3 is not exponentiation, that's multiplication.
>>738973453
Especially since I went to an American public school.
Well, most of it. It did spend a semester in a German International school... but I guess they didn't catch my problem.
Texas instruments is never incorrect
>>738973499
Fuck your Reverse Polish
>>738973617
Hey man, I gotta try.
>>738973537
Sure, I can do that. Just a sec.
>>738973499
RPN FTW!
>>738973637
How did you not catch your problem? At some point the blame lies on the student too. Did you never realize you were calculating your arithmetic wrong all these years?
>>738973351 thats not how it works. M and D are done as they appear from left to right
>>738973217
It's pemdas but multiplication and division are simply done from left to right before addition and subtraction are. Multiplication doesn't go BEFORE division. It's at the same time in order only from left to right
>>738973630
Uh, yeah. Notice how it's the same on the AFTER E line? dumbass...
>>738973499
* and / bind equally strong, and stronger than + and :
> 6/2 (2+1)
> 6/2 * (2+1)
> 3 * (2+1)
Now you can either simplify the parantheses or expand it distributively:
> 3 * (3) = 9
OR
> 3 * 2 + 3 * 1
> 6 + 3 = 9
Confirm here also: https://www.symbolab.com/solver/stepbystep/6%2F2%20%5Ccdot%20%5Cleft(2%2B1%5Cright)
Enjoy
>>738972155
Casio.
>>738973773
No multiplication and division have equal precedence. Same with addition and subtraction.
>>738972155
the casio
>>738973891
faggot
>>738973914
>>738973891
faggots
6/[2(2+1)] = 1
6/2(2+1) = 9
git gud scrubbz
>>738973925
>>738973963
samefaggot, kill yourself
>>738973902
What I'm saying is it's more like:
P
E
MD
AS
You're just moving along the equation and doing either multiplication or division in the third step. Whatever comes first regardless of whether it's multiply or divide.
>>738973476
This
when it comes to multiplication and division it just goes from left to right. Multplication does not take priority over division simply because multiplication comes first in "pemdas"
same with add and subtract
>>738973537
>>738973684
Oh look, proof!
Yer smart, anon.
they are both right the difference is each calculator uses a different sign for division which changes the outcome
>>738974144
Hahahahaahaha looks like your typical 4chan user.
>>738973719
Nope, never did.
>>738974144
actually neck yourself you faggot
>>738974144
>first licensed 2016
I hope you're not an immigrant, son.
>>738974238
Yeah, I may be. Computer nerd making 6 figures, wife and 3 kids.
Then again, I have no fucking clue what a "typical" /b/tard is, as I've seen so many different ones.
SEE IMAGE.
BOTH answers are correct.
When written to the side as it is done, the TI is stating answer A. Completely. Correct. Written in english it reads,
> "Six over two multiplied by two plus one."
The CASIO is also correct. It does not use a fractional division. It uses logical division. In english it reads:
> "Six divided by two which is multiplied by the sum of two plus one."
AKA, everyone here got trolled. GGWP
Fuckyeah ambiguous operators.
>>738974356
Nah, just moved from Atlanta, which was a fucking shit hole.
Born and raised in Cali, a couple years in Germany, a few months in Holland.
Don't be retarded.
Get this.
>>738974061
>>738973773
multiplication goes first when theres no multiplication sign.
6/2(2+1) = 1
6/2*(2+1)=9
>>738974188
division is division no matter what symbol you use
>>738974341
That's not a beard, that's laziness.
>>738974375
I mean, the next logical conclusion is to post a paystub and the I.D. of your wife and kids.
>>738974430
If the casio used the A b/c button as a fractional division operator, the CASIO would have the same answer as the TI.
These are different equations. You are all autists.
>>738972155
Division doesnt exist. Only fractions.
>>738974465
>Atlanta
>a fucking shit hole
Possibly the most accurate description of Atlanta I've ever seen.
>>738974475
Where the fuck did you hear that from? Multiplication is implicit if there's no sign. Thank god you're not in charge of anything consequential.
>>738973090
>Please
>Eliminate
>My
>Dickhead
>Aunt
>Shithead
>>738974559
And my blood type and genetic code.
Otherwise, there's no real proof.
And a vocaroo would help, as would a video chat with me and my family with them all providing IDs. (Not that my 10 year old has one... let alone my 17 year old)
>>738974631
totally different equation
>>738974652
That traffic. Fuck that fucking traffic in its fucking fuck hole.
>>738972885
To make it a fraction like that the EQ would read as
6 / ( 2 ( 2 + 1 ) )
6 / ( 2 ( 3 ) )
6 / 6
1
But that's not how it reads. It reads like this:
6 / 2 (2 + 1)
6 / 2 (3)
3 ( 3 )
9
I seriously don't understand why people have problems following simple rules of mathematics.
I bet someone in this thread will claim it goes like this
6 / 2 ( 2 + 1)
6 / ( 4 + 2)
6 / 6
1
>>738974735
Your wrong though. Sad.
>>738974631
>>738974430
>>738974583
This is literally the answer. Get out your fucking calculators.
>>738972512
In general I agree with this, but the TI is actually reading this as 6 over 2*3 because it's smarter and handles fractions.
The other calculator is simply answering a different question that is badly formatted.
>>738974698
>Multiplication is implicit if there's no sign.
no shit, thats what i said. buut if theres no sign it gets priority. example:
X=6
6/2X
6/12
0.5
6/2*X
3*6
18
see? youre fucking stupid
>>738974874
>your
its clear that you are not smart
Blue is right, does this even need to be explained?
>>738972155
>Even calculators from USA are stupid
>>738975091
No it doesn't. My point was that if there's no sign you still treat it like regular multiplication. It's exactly the same. I challenge you to point to a legitimate site somewhere that actually says a lack of a multiplication sign means it gets precedence.
>>738972927
pemdas faggot
>>738975196
But the TI is right and its from Texas while the Casio is wrong and its from Japan.
>>738974853
Not knowing that first is parentheses second is multiplication and third is dividing.
mfw
>>738972155
Google says 9
>>738975172
>its clear that your not smart
FTFY
>>738972155
The one on the left
Equation is 6 / 2 * (2+1) = 6 / 2 * 3 which is 9
>>738972475
light blue? or dark blue?
6/2x(2+1)
6/2x3
3x3
9
>>738973049
You are fucking retarded that's not it works at all
>>738973217
no
no
no
no
no
>>738974735
>>738974853
youre the one who has problems following simple rules. replace the parentheses with X
6/2X
So which does that represent
6

2X
or
(6/2)X
protip its the top one
>>738973391
youre calling others autistic but can't do 4th grade maths
>>738975005
can we please stop being autistic now?
this is the fucking answer
>>738975187
is using logical division and not fractional division
HOW ARE YOU ALL SO STUPID
> straight mad
>>738975187
you put a multiplication sign when there is none in the OP, thus, it is a completely different equation
>>738975346
First is parentheses second is both multiplication and division. They have equal precedence.
SMH
>>738974475
no it doesn't
>>738975428
PE
D/M
A/S
>>738975558
No man. Division comes after multiplication. Not to mention distribution.
>>738974766
"THIS" level = 9001
>>738975251
>if there's no sign you still treat it like regular multiplication. It's exactly the same
wrong, its not exactly the same
>I challenge you to point to a legitimate site somewhere that actually says a lack of a multiplication sign means it gets precedence.
answer this then
>>738975454
>>738974475
You must be american.
HOLY SHIT SO MUCH AUTISM
6 DIVIDED BY MOTHERFUCKING 2 TIMES MOTHERFUCKING 3 = 9 MOTHERFUCKERS
BASIC
FUCKING
MATH
>>738975359
google adds a multiplication sign; completely different equation
How is this a thing
Why are people so misinformed
TI is correct. parentheses first
then multiplication/division from left to right
6/2(2+1)
6/2(3)
3(3)
9
No, the slash does not turn the expression into a fraction. If there were parentheses around 2(2+1), then yes, you could format it as a fraction.
6/(2(2+1)) = 6 over 2(2+1)
>>738972155
casio  this equation can be written like on my pic = 1
left on is designed by lefties
also TI is a murican device  comes from #BLACKED country, faggot capital of world
>>738975723
>>738975770
Whats 6/2X where X=3?
thats right, its 1
>>738972155
TI.
I actually have that casio calculator.
I put the same equation in, it shows 9
Whoever made that picture pressed 1 after the answer was shown to make it seem like it gave a different answer.
>>738975735
Parenthesis first; it's 6/6=1
>>738976047
Yeah man, that's what I'm saying,
>>738972155
both answers are correct
but the same question wasn't asked
always read your calculator's manual
>>738972155
Man, great job OP. I love the fucking discourse that these threads create.
itt
people following silly rules that somehow trump the fabric of the universe
>>738976106
post a pic fagg
both calculator are correct, but they calculated different things. in order to tell the Casio to solve the same term that was put into the TI you need to use the "A B/C"button to tell it it's a fraction. it will solve to 9.
or use the regular division on the TI to get 1.
>>738976047
JFC you god damn autismo.
6/2 is a fucking fraction.
You're skipping multiplying the fucking fractions because you failed at school.
6/2 * 3/1
Which is fucking what anon?
18 over fucking 2
If you were using a division symbol. That fucking stick with the dots, it would be as you say. UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS NOT THE CASE BECAUSE FRACTIONS.
>>738976111
yeah, inside the parentheses idiot
>>738976139
but it's fucking not is it
that's a different equation sperglord
>>738973630
retard
>>738976382
he can't cause it's not true. you need to use the fraction key to get 1.
>>738976516
pic related
>>738976516
> bbbut anon its not 18 over 2 cause
>6/2X is 6 over sss
NO you god damn REJECT.
You can't just willy nilly multiply things into A FUCKING DENOMINATOR. That makes the WHOLE FUCKING THING WRONG and makes your teacher ROLL AROUND IN HER FUCKING GRAVE.
If the equation was 6/(allthatotherbullshittery) then yeah cause the parenthesis states the multiplication is taking place in the denominator. But it fucking doesn't. So wipe up your fucking tears and realize
>A FRACTIONAL OPERATOR IS NOT A DIVISION OPERATOR AND HAS DIFFERENT RULES.
>>738976836
CORRECT.
Now hit the A b/c button on the calculator, which would make the equation the same as the TI and watch.
>fucking
>magic
>9
Stupid niggers
>>738975786
Please go to Canada.
>>738977066
golly gosh
NO WAY
but uh the bottom part is still wrong cause you're still using a fractional operator and yet shoving things into the denominator that don't belong.
6/(2*(2+1)) = 1
like so OR
6 (sticksandballsdivision) 2(2+1)
>>738972512
/thread
>>738977289
Man listen, you don't need those parenthesis since the rules are clear and simple
1. parenthesis
2. distribution
3. multiplication
4. division
6/2*(2+1) = 1
Like so.
>>738977452
no
answer this
6/2X where X=3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9h1oqv21Vs
You all are a new fags
This is now an autism thread
>>738972155
They're both right. Math isn't real, it's manmade it's subjective
>>738972155
The equation states as follows:
(6/2)*(2+1)
and NOT
6/(2*(2+1))
Therefor, Casio is wrong.
>mfw someone not using a TI84 Plus
>>738972155
both. Casio's a fraction.
>>738972155
They are both doing pemdas, but it is a feature of the Casio that if you write:
2(2+1) it assumes you mean (2(2+1))
You can get around this by writing 2x(2+1)
I have found this to be a cool feature.
>>738972155
HP rpn would agree with TI.
6 enter
2 divide
3 times
Results = 9
rpn is true master race
>>738979533
nope. see:
>>738977676
>>738980006
>it is a feature of the Casio that if you write:
>2(2+1) it assumes you mean (2(2+1))
>You can get around this by writing 2x(2+1)
it is a feature of the Casio that if you write:
2(2+1) it assumes you mean (2(2+1))
You can get around this by writing 2x(2+1)
it is a feature of the Casio that if you write:
2(2+1) it assumes you mean (2(2+1))
You can get around this by writing 2x(2+1)
it is a feature of the Casio that if you write:
2(2+1) it assumes you mean (2(2+1))
You can get around this by writing 2x(2+1)
it is a feature of the Casio that if you write:
2(2+1) it assumes you mean (2(2+1))
>You can get around this by writing 2x(2+1)
>>738972593
we cant
X=3
6/2X = ?
So, in this case, we have to treat the problem in the simplest way possible, which would be to understand that after 6/2 there is NO additional parenthesis indicating that 6/2 & 3+1 are two distinct parts of a single problem. Thus, we must treat 2(3+1) as a single distinct part of the entire problem and solve it. Which would lead us to get a final answer of 1. Casio follows this simple method.
>>738972155
do you even calculator?
>>738972155
neither because of the difference between
symbols used for divide
the slash makes everything after it under the division bar, so:
6
 = 1
2(2+1)
the symbol on the casio applies only to the numbers adjacent to it, so:
6
(2+1)=9
2
>>738980941
the casio says 1
>>738981113
what do you think "neither" means?
>>738981260
but the casio is correct
see
>>738980803
>>738972155
6

2(2+1)
Anytime you see a divide symbol, just rewrite the equation like above and it becomes a lot easier to understand.
>>738981348
see >>738980941
>6
>(2+1)=9
>2
>>738981490
i dont really agree, but replace the slash with the divisor sign and you get 1, which means the casio is correct
>>738975454
I'm a programmer.
I work with algebra every single day, using variables.
The answer is 9.
>>738981661
see >>738980941
>6
> = 1
>2(2+1)
did you even bother to read the post?
>>738981703
what project are you working on?
I want to keep my eyes on the news so I'm ready for the spectacular failure that inevitable comes.
Nobody is even using the distributive property. Fucking dumbasses. Answer is 1. Deal with it.
>>738982529
Casio is using distributing property. That's why Casio is written by master race Asians and TI is made by uneducated fat Muricans.
>>738981703
is the answer to this:
>>738980803
also 9?
>>738982325
now do 6/2X and tell me what it says at x=3
>>738972155
HP48GTX
>The “order of operations” ... is merely a matter of convention (not a matter of right or wrong)
order of operations is not correct, anyone getting the answer as 9 has no inquisitive understanding of mathematics, only an ability to follow step by instructions in order to get to an answer that someone else has told them is right.
>>738973049
Real Math.
Done correctly.
>>738982945
please do what i asked
>>738983268
That is what you asked, tard. Have to place 3 in parentheses or it's 23
Broken down
>>738981868
"neither" != "both"
>>738983435
i expect to be looking at a graph
>>738983522
do you even distribution, nigger!?
>>738983599
lol thank you
>>738983177
both 9 and 1 are correct; order of operations is meaningless in actual mathematics, especially when ambiguity of notation means there can be 2 "correct orders" as in the picture
arithmetic is about certainty of notation; one calculator reads (6/2)*(2+1) and one reads 6/(2(2+1)); there is not enough information written 6/2(2+1) to say which is correct
since both are correct, the person who wrote them is in the wrong here, and should have notated more specifically
>>738983231
lmao
>>738972155
Just search up "Order of Operations" and read the articles. PEMDAS is indeed correct, but in an ambiguous case, such as division and multiplication, the correct thing to do is left to right.
6/2(2+1)
=6/2(3)
From there you go left to right, since the P is now done
(3)(3)
=9
Or you could look at it this way:
6*(1/2)*(2+1)
=3*(3)
=9
Since dividing by two is the same thing as multiplying by one half
You do realize it's pem d(left to right)a s(left to right)
>>738976023
this
>>738983773
This dude is right, dumb argument anyways, it's just semantics and a bunch of neckbeards wanting to think they're clever.
>>738972155
ITT  retardo's assuming everything to the left of the slash is in the numerator of a massive fraction and everything to the right is in the denominator
tl;dr /b/ cant polynomial
>>738981480
you cant just move shit because you think it makes it easier to look at autismo
>>738983806
i said 2X, not 2*X
nice try though
What does 1/2X mean?
It clearly means 1/(2X), but we just write 1/2X.
It does NOT mean (1/2)X or “one half X” since the notation would clearly be X/2 for that.
So 1/2X = 1/(2X), just as 6/2X is 6/(2X). When x = 2+1, the answer is 1.
>>738984288
You're a funny man
Let’s take the number 6. Do you agree that 6 = 4+2?
Now what is a common factor of 4 & 2? 2 works. So factorise the 2 from 4+2 and you get 2(2+1).
6 = 4+2 = 2(2+1). When we do math, we all know you have to use the WHOLE term, and not a portion of it, with an operator. Therefore, 2(2+1) is an entire term with a value of 6, and you cannot use a portion of it with another operator, such as doing the 6/2 =3, and them multiplying by (2+1). That is incorrect.
Therefore, 6÷2(2+1) = 6÷6 = 1.
Think about this equation as a real world problem. I have 6 apples. i want to divide among 2 groups of children, each group with 2 boys and 1 girl. How many apples does each child get? Now look at the question again, while thinking of that situation: 6÷2(2+1). They each get 1 apple.
It's the Casio
(2x3)(/)((2)+1))
Since neither calculator is an HP, they're both wrong.