What's the right answer?

>>60326761
Right, now go bait people in /sci/ with this

It's equal to 9, you multiply by (2+1), not divide, the fact that you divided by 2 earlier is irrelevant.

6/2(2+1)=6/2*3=6*3/2=9
The order of multiplication of scalars is irrelevant, if we were dealing with tensors, the order would matter.
If you want to get 1, you have to add a set of parantheses.
6/(2(2+1))=6/(2*3)=6/6=1

>>60326880
Yeah but shouldn't it be (6/2)(2+1) in order to get 9?

>>60326761
6÷2(2+1)
6÷2( 3)
3( 3)
3x3
9

>>60326761
Left.

6/2(2+1) = 6/2*3 = 18/2 = 9
6/(2*(2+1)) = 6/(2*3) = 6/6 = 1

File: file.png (1MB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x768px

Right calculation does not compute

>>60327005
>6/(2*(2+1)) = 6/(2*3) = 6/6 = 1
Wtf man, don't even write that.

>>60327020
DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO agzegvdehbxetjvcdruhcd

>>60326916
Nope. PEMDAS and all that. You tackle the parenthesis first, thus making it 6/2*3 basically, and multiplication and division being equal it is solved from left to right, further simplifying it into 3*3 which of course is 9. Bad Casio!

>>60327031
Ok m8

Now put in -3^2

>>60326761
Casio is for Muslims, so the answer is still correct in certain countries. The phone however is correct everywhere else.

>>60326761
Androshit aka Pajeetdroid is retarded as usual.

File: IMG_2066.png (98KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 750x1334px

>>60326761
Nine.

>>60326761
Isn't it fucking 1 because of the order of operations?
You always multiply before you divide.
6÷2(2+1)
6÷2(3)
6÷2*3
6÷6
1

>>60326761
Order of Operations, PEMDAS, brawh

>>60329038

multiplication and division are of equal precedence

>>60326761
BTW if you write 6/2x(2+1) you'll get 9 in the Casio

>>60326761
33

>>60329038
its a matter of defintion
some places say you multiply before you divide
in others, and this is how I learned it as a child, multiplication and divition are on the same level and you do them from left to right
there is no right answer
it's just a matter of convention
if you are worried about misunderstandings, use another pair of brackets, it won't kill you

>>60329038
multiply and divide should have the same priority, in which case its just left-to-right

>>60328970
>crapplecuck intelligence

>>60329038

> You always multiply before you divide

no.....

If they are on the same level on order of operations it goes from left to right.

at 6 ÷ 2 ( 3) you divide first.

>>60329038
>You always multiply before you divide.

no, there is no binding convention on the order of operations.
6 ÷ 2 × 3 can be read as either

(6 ÷ 2) × 3
or
6 ÷ (2 × 3).

÷ and × are binary operators. strictly speaking,
using a string containing two binary operators and three operands without is invalid.

>>60329145
>>60329136
>>60329123
>>60329117
Wasn't aware of the left to right shit.

>>60328977
nein nein nein

>>60329145
*without specifying the order of operations.

>>60326761
Both PEMDAS and BODMAS are equal, as this ambiguity in any Maths or Physics exams would have appropriate brackets.

On another note you can assume order of operations from left to right, if you don't get brackets.
(6/2)(2+1)

Give a context to the question and numbers, and I'll put the brackets in for you.

6/2*(2+1) = 6/2*23 = 3*2 = 9
If they wanted 1, they should specified that you're dividing by 2*(2+1) by adding more brackets, like 6/(2*(2+1)). Now it ends in you needing to go left to right for multiplication/division, which according to some rules is wrong (those rules are wrong though).
It's also why no sane person uses that sign to indicate division.

>>60329151
I blame schools teaching some convention as if it's universally agreed upon when it's not.

>>60326761
>solving right to left
why is it programmed like this way?

>>60329151
its ok anon, i too hate math.

>>60329190
So, it's not universally agreed upon to work left to right?
>>60329194
Yeah man, fuck algebra.

>>60329193
because a computer just reads strings from beginning to end so without explicitly programming some arbitrary, non-binding order of operations you'll get operations from left to right.

>>60329038
>>60328977
>>60328970

kys yoursevles my men

>>60326761
1 because multiplication is stronger than division

>>60329218
>So, it's not universally agreed upon to work left to right?
no, some teach that multiplications always come before division.

>>60329271
>kys yourselves
Implying we're retarded.

>>60326761
Casio is always right.

>>60329283
you've been taught so, but that convention is arbitrary and not universal.

>>60326761
1

are you an American?

>>60329291
Ah, ok.

>>60326880
>>60326916
>>60326955
>>60326998
>>60327014
>>60327043
>>60328977
>>60329188
>6/2(2+1) equals 6/2*(2+1)
This has nothing to do with PEMDAS or whatever calculation rule, this is about translating human input to a formula that was meant by the user. It's sensible to assume that 2(2+1) implies (2(2+1)), because if a user didn't mean this he surely would have specified the formula as 2*(2+1)

File: smug-pupper.jpg (365KB, 1057x1008px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1057x1008px

>>60326955

>>60329311
Absolutely not. There is no reason to assume there are implied brackets around there. All that that means is that there's multiplication taking place.

>>60326761
open javascript console
it returned 9
just fuck my shit up
left is right

>>60329335
>javascript
There's your problem.

What's confusing is whether parenthesis should be done first.

ie: 6/2(3) seems to demand a different solution than 6/2x3, based upon the expected prioritization of parentheses.

Parenthesis is being used as a placeholder for multiplication with no prioritization of the operation as a second function of parenthesis usage in addition to prioritizing operations.

The answer seems to be that this second function indeed has no prioritization.

>>60329291
What are you talking about? What math book, just provide one example, teaches multiplication before division? Show one example from a reputable publisher.
You can't. Because your wrong.

>>60329334
Q: why would multiplication be special to not need a symbol?

A: cuz implications

Distribution of parenthesis should be done first, if order is ambiguous.
1

File: 1457295661573-1.png (345KB, 1068x720px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1068x720px

>>60326761
my math book says we should do 2+1 first because the brackets, so 1 is the gud. Maybe.
>tfw math can cause religious wars too

>>60329363

mathS

>>60329334
>there is no reason
Except there is, it's more sensible to group x(y) together than to enforce left to right interpretation. The seven segment display of the calculator is a weak abstraction of actual math formulas, the translation to an actual math formula, only after which computation rules are applied, must be happen in the most sensible way. This includes that any user who writes x/z(y) surely means z(y) is the divisor.

>>60329390
Because ease of use.
>>60329421
>Except there is, it's more sensible to group x(y) together than to enforce left to right interpretation.
And it is grouped together. By multiplication. I don't see why you'd think they're even more grouped together.

>the most sensible way.
Which is, reading what's there without making stuff up.

>x/z(y)
Different problem than what you initially said by the way.

>>60329311
> people actually believe this
It clearly states 3(3) after you simplify a bit
Now distribute the 3 into the ()
Oh wow its 9

>>60329402
yes but what does this mean. i would "Distribute the parenthesis" to get
6/2(2+1) = 6/2*3 = 3*3 = 9
or does "Distribute the parenthesis" mean
6/2(2+1) = 6/6 = 1

>>60329311
x(y) being equal to x*(y) is an actual rule, while implying that x/y(z) = x/(y(z)) isn't.

>>60326761
The equation is written incorrectly.

>>60329493
no its 9. the casio is shit

>>60329459
>different problem
x/z(y) =? x/(z(y))
It's not different, think again

>>60329465
You're assuming the divisor is solely 2, but 2(2+1) not containing a * implies (2(2+1)) is the divisor

>>60329418
No, 6/2*3 is still 9.

>>60329402
6/2(2+1)
6/2 * 2 + 6/2 * 1 = 9

>>60329513
>x/z(y) =? x/(z(y))
>It's not different, think again
I didn't say that was different. But 2(2+1) isn't similar to x/z(y) or x/(z(y)). Or did you forget what you initially said?

>>60329521
6/2*3=9
6 / 2 3 = 1

>>60329513
>2(2+1) not containing a * implies (2(2+1)) is the divisor
According to what?

It's both depending on the syntax of the calculator. If you can't add more a proper divisor symbol then add more parenthesis to be fucking clear about what you want.

File: a94e41c60e.jpg (342KB, 1032x774px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1032x774px

when you actually enter it this way it actually says 9

>>60329541
The point was that the lack of * in 2(2+1) means 2(2+1) is grouped BEFORE left to right consideration

>>60329545
>6 / 2 3 = 1
6 / 2 3 = 0,26086956521739130434782608695652

>2+1=3
>6/2=3
>3x3
>9

>>60329555
Common semantic sense. This isn't a math rule problem, this is a seven segment display -> actual math formula conversion problem.

>>60329568
How did you solve the captcha?

>>60329568
>spaces don't separate numbers
Wtf dude

>>60329557
I don't think those Casio clones use the same chip

>>60329574
>Common semantic sense.
Common sense isn't an argument. Where is it written down that semanic sense indicates that? Otherwise you're just assuming that people write things a certain way for no reason, in which case you have as much reason to believe that people write it the other way around.

>>60329557
Which makes complete sense

>>60329586
they do, on my friend's unit even the 570FX upgrade trick works.
if you input 6/2(2+1) it says 1 as well

>>60329574
you can represent brackets on a seven seg

>>60329574
>This isn't a math rule problem, this is a seven segment display -> actual math formula conversion problem.
Not really, people write single line formulas all the time. And brackets work on 7 segment displays.
That's an actual math formula, you're just making up rules that don't exist.

>>60329586
Newer casio clones are definitely using the same chip, there hasn't been any significant advance in calculators since they invented textbook display mode, which has eliminated any motivation to learn to use your own calculator.

>>60329601
>trees are not green define green lol
We need common sense for discussion, anything you say implying we don't is worthless

2(2+1) implying (2(2+1)) is a reasonable assumption, semantic problems are solved in a semantic way.

>>60329585
They don't actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark#Digit_grouping

>>60329467
>>60329530

The question is whether or not an un-simplified fraction is assumed, right? Prior distribution precedence still holds, and / remains a binary operator in computer based calculations, unless explicitly denoted, i.e. (6/2). As such it should be
6/2(2+1)
6/2(3)
6/6
1

/ and ÷ are equivalent operators, though maybe there are calculators or systems that distinguish the two. A fractional grouping is not implied and must be made explicit.

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

>>60329642
Still that's a different case

>>60329634
>>trees are not green define green lol
What the fuck? Trees aren't green, they're brown. And you can define green as a certain combination of pigments. And I don't see how this analogy works at all.

>We need common sense for discussion, anything you say implying we don't is worthless
Bullshit. Just follow the rules, especially in math.

>2(2+1) implying (2(2+1)) is a reasonable assumption
Why?

File: IMG_20170511_184642_noexif.jpg (4MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4160x3120px

Ti master race. A little bit irrelevant, but what's with the shadow on LCD displays?

>>60329657
It definitely doesn't mean multiplication at least.

>>60329662
They're deactivated segments of the dot matrix LCD. Lower your contrast.

>>60329607
>>60329620
>there's a different way to write implied brackets
There's a different way to write implied * too, bad argument.

The question is whether you'd logically first group x(y) together as divisor, or first replace implied * with an actual *.

>>60329574
The formula isn't on a seven segment display.

>>60329694
>>there's a different way to write implied brackets
Who are you quoting? Because there definitely isn't, because that's a thing that does not exist.

>>60329652
What are you on about?
6/2(3) = 3(3) = 9

>>60329660
You're saying that this is about math rules but it's not, it's about semantics. You apply math rules after assuming that x/y(z) means x/y*z over x/(y(z)) which is a *semantic* (not defined as math rules) assumption.

>>60329705
Imagine how a math formula is written down, say on paper. There's a division line, the divisor is written underneath the line, this implies brackets.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/distributive-law

File: Screenshot_20170511-130038.png (53KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1080x1920px

Lol

Both are correct, the brackets are ambiguous
It should be written as (6/2)*(2+1) or 6/(2*(2+1)), depending on what you want to calculate

File: 1446968167915.gif (2MB, 580x433px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 580x433px

>broken math

>>60329838
>both are correct
fucking common core math
no, the answer is 1

>>60329660
>>2(2+1) implying (2(2+1)) is a reasonable assumption
>Why?

>>60329728

Because parenthesis is not an operation, it denotes a set.

(1) is 1
(1+2) is 3
(mom + dad) is parents

It is not an operation. If you see an operator-less expression with a set you must implicitly make an operational assumption, i.e. 2(2+1) is really (2*(2+1)) otherwise it makes no sense to put a number next to another, as 12 is not the same as 1*2. This implicit assumption holds in more complex expressions, because operations are handle in binary, thus distribution must be handled first for multiplication and fractional groupings must be explicitly marked.

Why does this trigger /g/ so hard? It's just arbitrary syntax choices.

Anyhow I'd expect anything in the form f(x), including 2(2+1) to be parsed with a higher precedence than division/multiplication. It'd be pretty terrible/nonsense to parse 2÷sin(2) as (2÷sin)(2). That way the grammar is simpler anyway.

>>60329728
There's two interpretations
6/2(3) = (6/2)*3
or
6/2(3) = 6/(2*3)

>>60329271
fuck off back to plebbit, pajeet scum

>>60329887
>Because parenthesis is not an operation, it denotes a set.
No, they denote a tuple if anything but clearly not in this context. Here it's a subterm.

And yes it has an implied multiplication, so it's
6/2(3) = 6/2 * (3) = 3 * (3) = 9

I still don't know what you're on about.

>>60329939
And the second interpretation is retarded.

According to an iPhone calculator, 2.
2 is the answer.

>>60329772
No it doesn't, it just means the same thing as what brackets mean. There's a difference.

>>60326761
Right. Just think a little;
6/2(2+1) = (6)/(2(2+1))
So (6)/(2(3)) -> (6)/(2x3) -> (6)/(6) -> 1.

>>60329887
>If you see an operator-less expression with a set you must implicitly make an operational assumption, i.e. 2(2+1) is really (2*(2+1)) otherwise it makes no sense to put a number next to another
That's wrong. You don't make an assumption, that's a rule. A number next to brackets means multiplication of the brackets by the number.

>>60330189
With "think a little" you mean adding random parenthesis for no reason?

According to the casio manual the precedence for * and / is the same and associativity is left-to-right as in C.
See
http://support.casio.com/storage/en/manual/pdf/EN/004/fx100MS_115MS_570MS_991MS_EN.pdf
page 7.
Then why is the result wrong? Should be 9.

>>60330177
Similarly x/y(z) means x / y(z) which means x / (y(z)) over x / y * (z)

>>60330148
kek

>>60330241
>x/y(z) means x / y(z)
There is no concept of spaces in math. Useless distinction.

>which means x / (y(z)) over x / y * (z)
So now it's a fact? Source it up. Or do you assume it means that because of your own semantic reasoning thinking there are implied brackets there?

>>60330220
Please tell you are trolling.

File: The_giver.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

6/2 (2+1) combine the two addends within parenthesis. Devide 6 and 2 you get 3
=3(3) factor 3, 3
=9 Your final product is 9

Right, that's a fucking expression, not just 6/2 then X/(2+1)

>>60330266
Are you? It's like you didn't read a single post in the thread.

>>60330047
It's handy, especially on shitty Casio calculators where moving the cursor around is slow and annoying. On these calculators t's just a useful shorthand for a multiplication operator with higher precedence than normal.

How can you not see that the distinction in grammars is completely arbitrary? It really doesn't matter unless you just can't comprehend it or something. Look at how fucking triggered people are here; there's obviously no standard everybody agrees on as with ordinary operator precedences.

>>60330324
What's arbitrary about left-to-right?

File: 20170511_143605_share.jpg (106KB, 480x678px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 480x678px

>>60326761
You tell me.

>>60329718
>3.14

nigga 3.14 is pie or 22/7

>>60330324
Do you mean casios will return 9 if you type the * explicitly?
Can anyone test this? I was poor in high school and all I got was a fx-82

>>60330350
It has literally nothing to do with associativity. If you have an older Casio handy try it for yourself. The magical invisible multiplication operator is still right associative on them even though it has higher precedence.

>>60330415
Yeah, exactly.

>>60330302
Read what? A bunch of retards like you pretending they understand math? Left is only valid if you are doing by the order, if you are dealing with an expression then right is the correct.

>>60329421
Since when do calculators, with only a seven seg display, display whole mathematical expressions?
You can't even represent basic operators on a seven seg.

>>60330466
>Another retard who just learned PEMDAS by heart but doesn't actually understand it.
cute

>>60326761
Gee idk, chink phone with pajeet software vs actual calculator. Really though decision.

>>60330565
Yet Mathematica agrees with the pajeet software.

>>60326761
I've always been for solving the second part first.
I feel like 2(2+1) implies that it has to be solved first, as if it were a single constant.
If it had been 2*(2+1) I would've gone left to right.

>>60330590
Yet what? Another pajeet software?

File: math.jpg (73KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1080x1080px

>>60330324
This guy gets it, everybody talking about this like there's some "mathematically right answer" is retarded honestly

File: 8dad3f3184b2c19f03965ed6e48a76f1_absolutely-disgusting-know-meme-absolutely-disgusting_600-800.jpg (61KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x800px

>>60326761
> no texas instruments

>>60330675
kys

>This thread
>This is the current state of /g/

Americans or retarded underage, all of you.
Fucking kys.

>>60330683
2.5*pi

File: Screenshot_20170511-111416.png (269KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1080x1920px

>>60326761
Dare I say, RTFM?

File: zoom on nose.jpg (235KB, 2047x1356px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 2047x1356px

>>60330831
you would be correct, good job anon :)

>>60330262
There's no semantic rules like there's math rules, that's the point smartass

File: 1494050451161.jpg (508KB, 1177x1280px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1177x1280px

>>60330831
3.14(2.5)
=7850
=7.85

File: shiggydiggydoo.png (137KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 300x300px

>>60330949
>choosing to go with an inaccurate answer for no apparent reason

>>60329038
I like the PEMDAS mnemonic, but holy fuck did it ruin some peoples maths forever.
P
E
MD (left to right whichever comes first)
AS (left to right whichever comes first)

>>60331049
Worst thing is the 'P'. It kinda implies that you should treat parenthesis as an operator instead of an expression inside another expression.

>>60330683
∫[0,∞] ((10sin(x))/(2x)) dx = ∫[0,∞] 5*((sin(x))/x)
via Laplace = 5* π/2

File: 10950614_892111920855348_307429206_n.jpg (25KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 320x320px

>>60331049
In Germany we never had PEMDAS, the only thing close to it was "Punktrechnung geht vor Strichrechnung" which roughly translates to "dots before lines" so there never really was the idea of + before -

>>60331180
whoops, forgot the dx
no bully

File: Celsius or Fahrenheit.jpg (361KB, 1092x2048px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1092x2048px

>What's the only true temperature?
t. this thread

>>60331294
I think we can at least agree that only retards will answer Kelvins.

6÷2(2+1)
6÷2(3)
3(3)
9

Multiplication and division have equal precedence and are conducted from left to right. If you've hardcoded PEMDAS in-order it will improperly multiply:

6÷2(3)
6÷6
1

>>60326955
Thats a funny way of writing

6/6

>>60327020
but he's right. its ambigious

>>60331403
>evaluating the term inside parenthesis before it's necessary
disgusting

>>60331350
>>60331294
R A N K I N E
A
N
K
I
N
E

>>60331459
Eat your vegetables first, Anon

File: C736rsUXwAQp29g.jpg (90KB, 640x847px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 640x847px

>>60331462
nice meme

>>60331462
B A S E D
A
S
E
D

>have convenient way to express precedence rules
>get it wrong
fucking android developers

>>60331459
>not evaluating it ASAP
spot the functional programmer
Also
>not immediately evaluating it to the form in which you have to write the least

>>60331517
But it's less to write since you follow it left-to-right and you can solve and write down the left part first and then think about the second part: 6/2(2+1) = 3 (3)

File: togepi.png (195KB, 572x380px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 572x380px

>this thread again
9 is the correct answer

File: 1494309944351.jpg (247KB, 960x1200px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 960x1200px

>>60326761
The calculator, obviously, because it's following the order of operations. The phone solves it straight across, ignoring the order of operations like a retard. It's parentheses first, then multiplication, then division. This is basic algebra and I sure hope that all of these fags ITT saying it's 9 are just shit trolls.

Compare these two equations:

6 / sqrt(7-3) = 3

6 / 2(7-3) = 12

In the first case, "sqrt(" is the application of a function.

In the second case, "3(" is the application of multiplication.

>>60331923
(cont.)

The problem with "PEMDAS" is that it doesn't include functions -- it really should be "PFEMDAS".

The fact that F comes before D in "PFEMDAS" accounts for why the above two are evaluated in a different order.

>>60331945
(cont.)

What's going on here is that people get confused between using "(" as the application of a function versus the application of multiplication. This, combined with the fact that the "PEMDAS" acronym is incomplete, are the reasons why there is so much confusion about this.

It's remarkable that no matter how many times this is explained, only a tiny percentage of people will ever understand it. If you understand and remember the above explanation, then congratulations: you are a member of a very tiny group of people in the world who not only understands how to evaluate this correctly, but also has a complete understanding of the cause of the confusion surrounding it.

>>60331945
That's even worse than normal PEMDAS.
Stop treating functions or sub expressions like infix operators.

>>60332006
>Stop treating functions or sub expressions like infix operators.

There's no logical reason for your arbitrary discrimination against non-infix operators. Precedence and associativity rules apply to all operators, not just infix operators.

Also, "P" and "E are not infix operators, and they're both included in "PEMDAS". So I guess you're arguing that the acronym should be "MDAS" instead because you only want to consider infix operators? Seriously, dude, you have not thought this through at all.

>>60332234
>There's no logical reason for your arbitrary discrimination against non-infix operators.
But there is. Parsing functions and parenthesis is completely different due to their recursive nature and that you don't actually have to evaluate them first.

>Exponentiation
>not infix
Are you retarded?
And yes the P is stupid and I don't care PEMDAS, I thought that was clear enough.

>"MDAS"
That's essentially what schools in my country teach.

ITT: retards that think they know anything about math

>Idiots will fall for the vague math ' 'trick" equations again not realizing mathematics is a language invented by humans whom create rules based on the majority consensus of mathematicians.

File: 1494363680630.jpg (137KB, 503x600px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 503x600px

>>60329311
what the hell.

ab = a x b
2b = 2 x b

so,
b(5) = b x 5
5(3) = 5 x 3

>>60330377
but that is

6/(2(2+1)
not
6/2(2+1)

>>60333732
Where is the problem anon. You can see function application as a multiplication. Why not.

Why are we still talking about this? The answer for the Casio is defined >>60330900

>>60333825
that made me laugh
thank you <3

>>60326761
I learned to get rid of parenthesis first, so I would do

6 / ((2 x 2 ) + (2 x 1))

Therefore, 1.

Because that problem implies that it's 6 / (2 x (2 + 1).

2 + 1 = 3
6 / 2 = 3
3 * 3 = 9

File: Screenshot_20170511-225454.png (37KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 720x1280px

the plot thickens

>>60334142
You're retarded

ITT: dumb people feeling smart because they can do primary school level math.

>>60334142
You're just stupid.

>>60326761
Answer is inconclusive, there aren't enough parenthesis to properly determine what is happening.

6/(2*(2+1)) != (6/2) * (2+1)

>>60326761
>>60329557
>>60329662
>>60329718
>>60330395
>showing how pleb you are by not using RPN
ahahahahahaha look at these fags

>>60326761
BEDMAS

So first 2+1 = 3
Then 6/2 = 3
Then 3(3) = 9

>>60326761
How the phone calculator reads the first equation.

>(6÷2)(2+1)
Then solves as
>(3)*(3)
Which equals
>9

How the casio (That uses line calculations) reads it

>6÷(2*(2+1))
It then resolves it into
>6÷(6)
Which equals
>1

What we are seeing here is that BOTH calculators are right the formulae inputted in each is different due the different form of calculation executed by the said calculators.

What have we learned?

Is that "6/2*(2+1)" Is different from "6÷2*(2+1)"

>>60326761

6x0.5x3=9
don't get memed by division it's just multiplication of the inverse

File: 1493686691930.jpg (26KB, 452x342px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 452x342px

Interesting.

So apparently the right one result is taught in Yuropoor and Nipponland while the left result is correct in Burgerland.

The right one is the correct answer as in a expression made by a human, if made by a machine then is a logic expression and it can gives whatever the hell it want.

File: 1473463602104.png (2KB, 71x104px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 71x104px

>using the division symbol outside of 2nd grade math worksheets

It's time to stop.

Which board is smarter /g/ or /sci/?

>>60335928
/g/ is much larger and has combined way more brain power.

>>60329363
Yes as mentioned elsewhere ITT multiplication and division are functionally the same thing (dividing by 3 is the same as multiplying by 1/3, for example).

Everyone saying that some places don't teach left to right are just mad they're wrong. I fucking forgot too and thought it was 1 but after reading the first four comments I accepted I was wrong instead of dreaming some shit up like "left to right is not taught everywhere". No Mathematics has universal conventions, that's the fucking point.

>>60326761
Too fucking vague. I hate this shit.

Is it written (6(2+1))/ 2? or 6/(2(2+1))?

Write it out you fucking mongoloid. It has jack shit to with pemdas. It' all about interpretation of the question.

>>60335928
/sci/ of course. A bunch of retards that think they are good with computers just because they can install Arch is not what I would call smart.

>>60326761
>Processing: 6/2(2+1)
>Infix: 6/2*(2+1)
>Postfix: 6 2 / 2 1 + *
>Result: 9

>>60326761
6 / 2 (2 + 1) =
6 / [(2 * 2) + (2 * 1)] = <-----Distributive Property
6 / [4 + 2] =
6 / 6 =
1

Always simplify your expressions :^)

>>60338307
This right here

File: ITT: math brainlets.png (14KB, 357x301px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 357x301px

>>60326761
file name

common core: the thread

>>60326761
fraction ≠ ÷

>>60338682
you only distribute if there's variables.
3(x + y)
3x + 3y

That said, you end up with: 6 / 2(3) and do the brackets first.

The answer is 1

>>60338307
You're retarded. Operator precedence dictates that in the absence of parentheses, division and multiplication are processed left to right. Maybe you got confused because there are parentheses, I don't know, but the parens that exist are elevating the precedence of the addition. There are no parens forcing the multiplication to occur before the division.

The correct precedence is:
>6/2(2+1)
>6/2(3)
>3(3)
>9

I'm really surprised the Casio got this wrong.

>>60338888
> 6/2(3)

there is a parenthesis forcing the multiplication to occur first. As I recall, the addition of the parenthesis means that 2(2+1) is taken as one term which would all fall into the denominator.
I'm certain that if you typed in the same equation without a parenthesis the answer would be different on the casio.


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

>>60338888
>responding to a shitpost with le reddit face in it

Stop being a faggot, you faggot.

File: casio.png (267KB, 530x560px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 530x560px

>>60338888
>I'm really surprised the Casio got this wrong.
Can brainlets even tell the difference between / and ÷?
most babby calculator app think that division symbol equates to / when they programmed their shitty non-standard calculator app

>>60326761
This is why you always need to use explicit parenthesis. There's no actual way to tell which is the one that the user wanted.

ITT how to spot the middleschooler who got an F in math

see
>>60338991

>>60338875
you can always distribute wth r you talking about

>>60338875
>you only distribute if there's variables.
wat
2(2 + 1)
(4 + 2)
(6)

>>60339046
>>60339059
You can distribute, but what's the point?

Inside the bracket are two terms which you can simplify to one term because they are both constants; if they were variables you would not be able to simplify and you would need to distribute.

>>60339102
I think his point wasn't to show the most efficient way to solve the equation, but rather to show some kind of simple pseudo-proof. He's not saying you should write out the distribution on paper, he's showing that 2(2 + 1) = 6 in both cases.

Don't ask me how that actually proves his point, though. That's just how I interpreted it.

itt /g/ is retarded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URcUvFIUIhQ

>>60329127
Guess what, I AM on a mac. Really gets the gerbil running doesn't it?

>>60338875
You do things INSIDE the brackets first... not outside.

6/2(3) is done left to right since multiplication and division are on the same order.

>>60340028
Why would you admit to being stupid?

>>60335836
>32-bit

The only people wrong are the 9 fags who think its related to PEDMAS.

Also I have seen Math teachers get this wrong.

The answer is clarify it better.
I was always taught to read x(z) not as x * z but as x amount of z's

After solving the brackets:

The equation ends up being read as "6 divided by two threes" which is 1.
The 9 answer comes from reading "6 divided by 2 multiplied by 3" and solving it left to right.

As far as I'm aware there is no correct way to solve it. PEDMAS is not math law.

>>60340623
>I was always taught to read x(z) not as x * z but as x amount of z's
That doesn't solve the ambiguity at all.
The question still remains is x = 6/2 or x = 2

>>60329489
Of course its not a rule. The whole problem is that it's an ambiguity. Doing it strictly by pedmas is fine but its pretty likely that that is not what the user meant.

The difference in notation doesn't matter mathematically but it matters to humans

I think its telling that it was the actual (very nice) scientific calculator which gives the most natural answer and the shitty phone app that gives the easy one.

>>60333732
This terrible bait didnt make me mad but that comma did

>>60342705
>Of course its not a rule. The whole problem is that it's an ambiguity.
Ambiguity that can be solved by actual conventions that have written down rules.

>but its pretty likely that that is not what the user meant.
You're basing this on nothing.

I like the way that gives 1, apart from the fact it's how I do it, you can do the following.

You can write shit like xy ÷ xy
and it means the same as (xy) ÷ (xy) which seems more natural to me as how you would interpret it, instead of x*y÷x*z.

If you follow the 9 logic you have to add the brackets, (xy) ÷ (xz)

>>60342746
>Ambiguity that can be solved by actual conventions that have written down rules.
which don't exist smartass

even math professors argue about the order for this kind of thing

>>60343018
No, they definitely exist. I didn't say they were universal or something.

>>60329545

Incorrect. PE MD AS is broken up into hierarchies.

PE Parentheses/Exponent
MD Multiplication/Division
AS Addition/Subtraction.

If two items are in the same tier, then the order is from left to right.

So 6/2*3 would be 6/2 = 3 then 3 * 3 = 9.

>>60343039
>P same as E
wat

>>60343071

You heard me faggot.

>>60343079
So if you have x^(y+z), you'd calculate x^y first?

File: 20170512_145049.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

The flying fuck
Which of my two problem solvers is right?

>>60343537
It's not an exact science. That said I find the one on the right odd.
If a division symbol was used, as in OP, I can understand the 9, but if its a / symbol I think it's more likely everything following should be below a line, as such:

6
----
2(2+1)

In this case you can look at it like a fraction. The calculator seems to interpret it like
6
---- x ( 2 + 1)
2

I find this bizarre personally. But I am a 1 fag to begin with.

>you can't trust a scientific calculator with basic math
wtf

6/2(2+1)=6/4+1=6/5=1.1

>>60329096
Distribution is not implied with a Casio calculator?

What dogshit

>>60343651
The question still remains where you end the fraction line.

I'd say 6/2 makes more sense, because you usually try to isolate the fraction into a singe factor when working with equations, e.g. have something like (1/2)(x + 2y) instead of (1/2)x + y

File: .jpg (23KB, 600x484px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x484px

>>60343678

The right answer is 1.
The left answer is 9.

>>60326761
9 and no amount of ""common core"" bullshit is going to convince me otherwise.

>>60343656
This is more of a language problem than a math problem.

See
>>60335927

In real maths they would write it similarly to

6
---- x ( 2 + 1)
2

if the answer is 9. or

6
----
2(2+1)

for 1

They wouldn't do one liners at all I don't think.

What I find devious about OPs bait is that many 9 fags didn't/don't understand where 1 fags get their answer from. Many of them think it had to do with the order of doing multiplication before division and rage about "NO JUST DO IT LEFT TO RIGHT". As a 1 fag it has to do with how 2(1+2) is interpreted and it not being the same as 2*(1+2). People are actually reading two different questions.

This isn't one of those probability Monty Hall memes where there is a definite answer. As far as I am aware, no maths authority exists to tell you how to interpret it. The fact the calculators get different answers is good proof of that. It is worth noting however, if you are a programmer, that this kind of thing happens and that the computer may interpret your equation wrong if you aren't careful. I think most computers just go straight left to right, take 2(1+2) as the same as 2*(1+2) and get 9.

I read that as 1 because i mentally group together x(y+z) into 1

>>60343837
>The fact the calculators get different answers is good proof of that.
This has already been explained.
Some calculator give implicit multiplication higher precedence.
This isn't a math rule. It's just a short-hand to ease typing expressions into your calculator.

The way the expression is written, the answer truly is 9.
Because you do need to read equations left-to-ride.
x / y / z is (x/y)/z not x/(y/z).

>>60343688
Well that just goes to show. Because I never would've thought of it like that as a 1 fag but if that's how some people see it. I thought, "surely even 9 fags would interpret everything to the right of the / as being like its underneath"

Especially if I say something like
xy/xy

doesn't it look like I'm saying

xy
----
xy

and not

xy
---- * y
x

??


but maybe it doesn't to you? So yeah.

>>60343921
No, I don't think you understand. Read what I wrote about why 9 fags were raging.

>>60344002
But I did address the point about implicit multiplication.
There's no special fixed math rule about that.
And in absence of that, you can only treat it just like explicit multiplication if you want to be "correct".

File: 1459421142197.jpg (293KB, 1397x938px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1397x938px

>>60343778

>>60343990
xy/xy is diffrent, it doesn't use distribution nor a constant factor

>>60326761
All those who say 1:
What's the solution to 5 - 2+1

>>60343837
>2(1+2) not being the same as 2*(1+2)
It means the same, but one is using implicit multiplication, the other one explicit.
If I say your breath smells like literal shit, I'm just implying you ate shit. But the message is pretty much the same.

>>60326761
operands inside parenthesis has highest precedence.
since division and multiplication have equal precedence, solve the rest from left to right
% symbol means mod, or remaining division, so 6 % 2 is 0
0(3) = 0
so answer is zero. both calculators are wrong
>6%2(2+1)
>6%2(3)
>0(3)
>0

File: c.jpg (466KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1536x2048px

how do you get 9 of that? 6/2(2+1) shows 3 for me.

>>60326761
Both are correct.
There is two schools of though on this,
left to right or multiplication before division.

>>60326761

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

If you get 9, you are a retard.

Casio confirmed for poo in loo garbage

File: 42.jpg (13KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 640x480px

>american education
>the thread

>>60344051
Nope. It's not a math rule, you're right about that. But neither is any 9 logic. It's a matter of interpretation. If you believe math rules exist go find them. If the calculator did it as 1 and there's enough 1 answers from people out there, I'd say you should take it seriously as an interpretation.

Because with 1 logic you can do shit like

xy÷xy = 1

I prefer it.

>>60344079
Sorry but I don't really understand what you are saying. When I learned it x and y and whatever other letters are just stand in for some other value.

I've always seen

xy÷xy = 1(2)÷1(2)

is correct.

>>60344293
>>60344326
*giggles*
try again sweaties

>>60344345
op didnt say what he put in those calculators tho.

>>60344126
>retard

File: devi.png (7KB, 350x198px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 350x198px

>>60344345
It's literally what division symbol mean, you fucking retard.

>>60344345
>when you're stupid enough to create your own new math

>>60344377
*giggles*
he's still trying to justify his incorrect method by performing mental gymnastics
boy i sure do love feeling superior to others by applying my 3rd grade math understanding to the world~~~~

>>60344377
>doesn't understand elementary school math order of operations
>call other anons retarded

>>60344274
> Both are correct.
> There is two schools of though on this,
How do you Americans still launch rockets in space if 'both are correct'?

>>60344392
There is no other order of operations other than algebra you fucking American imbreads.

PEMDAS is not official nor universal!

>>60344340
Sorry for anyone that might be baffled by the second equation, I was thinking x = 1 and y = 2 in the second part of the post but didn't state it.

>>60344410
Inbred*

>>60344389
>when you're too retarded and arrogant to know you're retarded

>>60344397
You know how first rocket failed because Imperial system was mixed with Metric?

This is same situation.

>>60344430
sorry meant for >>60344377

>>60344410
>PEMDAS is not official nor universal!

Yeah, those silly britbongs call it BEDMAS

>>60344460
you're lying
nice try tho

>>60344340
>But neither is any 9 logic.
9 is the result of correctly applying strict math rules, go left-to-right and mind operator precedence and parenthesis:
6/2(2+1) := 6 / 2 * (2+1)
all outer operators have equal precedence, so you calculate the leftmost operation fist -> = 3 * (2+1)

No special interpretation or anything, solely strictly following the rules.

Every calculator and CAS system that doesn't treat implicit multiplication differently will give you 9 here.

>>60326761
There is no good answer because the question is ambiguous.
Everyone itt trying to prove he's right is as fucking stupid as the next guy trying to prove his wrong.

6/2(2+1)
6/2(3)
6/2*3
3*3
9

File: jackie-chan.jpg (19KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x300px

>>60344524

>>60326761
6/2*(2+1) means 6/2 * 1/3
However (6/2)*(2+1) means (6/2)*3

go back to 3rd grade morons

>>60344496
See here you go with muh rules but you have no proof of your rules.
You have a calculator with the same 1 answer and I know I always did it this way. I read it outloud as "six divided by, two two plus ones"

muh
xy÷xy = 1
elegance my nigger.

Why can't I give the 2(2+1) precedence like the calculator?

I'm going to bed to watch some anime so don't bother replying but it seems to me you are mistaken thinking your rules are "the rules".

>>60344581
/thread

>>60326761
so I have casio fx-991 and it writes problem as follows after you press to solve

6/(2(2+1))

phone in this instance does it differently

(6/2)(2+1)

>>60344581
why though?
Firstly, do the one in the parentheses: 1+2 = 3
Then, as only multiplication and division remains, do everything left to right:
6/2 = 3
3*3 = 9
Therefore, the answer is 9.

>>60326761
This shit is like the python 2 and python 3 of math, right?

>>60343651
Thanks for writing it out in plain language for all the 9 fags (me included) to understand that some schools of math treat a divisor symbol as a simple fraction rather than a portion of an algebraic formula where EVERYTHING past the divisor symbol gets put on the bottom of the fraction rather than just the next immediate value.
>one line maths are stupid and this thread proves it
>mind is full of hurt now

>>60344617
wat

You don't think left-to-right is a rule?

Show me any literature that gives implied multiplication precedence over division (keep in mind division with the actual symbol for it like in OP's pic - not a lazy slash)

6  1
- * -
2  3

> = 9
mehrrica

>>60333803
that's what / means

File: 1382947609428.jpg (240KB, 620x343px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 620x343px

>>60345060
I have no idea whats going in in this post

>>60345104
>>60345138
we know

>>60344687
because math >>60345104

>>60344687
/ seperates the dividor from the dividend(i think that is how you call them in english at least). Anything before / is the dividor and anything after / is a dividend.
Also imagine as if the dividor and dividend are both in parentheses just seperate 3/1+1(equals 4) and 3/1+(1)(equals 3/2)

Careful because this shit is different for most languages

File: o.jpg (126KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 800x532px

option C

>>60345596
why does it show / and not ÷

>>60345841
>÷
this is only for retards and grade schoolers

>>60345969
>he doesn't know

>>60345596
best option. no ambiguity. specify or gtfo.

>>60332353
>>Exponentiation
>>not infix
>Are you retarded?

You do not know the definition of "infix". I recommend picking up a computer science textbook on data structures to understand what it means.

>>"MDAS"
>That's essentially what schools in my country teach.

That is incomplete. Students in your country will fail to correctly interpret certain expressions because it's incomplete. I'm sorry you live in such a country.

>>60346243
>Infix notation is the notation commonly used in arithmetical and logical formulae and statements. It is characterized by the placement of operators between operands – "infixed operators" – such as the plus sign in "2 + 2".

How is 2^2 or 2**2 not infix?

>Students in your country will fail to correctly interpret certain expressions because it's incomplete.
Students in my country are able to do more than just learn 5 letters by heart. They understand that parenthesis aren't operators but denote sub expressions and that multiplication and division have the same precedence.

>>60346390
>How is 2^2 or 2**2 not infix?

Your examples are infix.

However, the standard mathematical notation of x2 is neither prefix, postfix, nor infix -- if you consider that both x and 2 are the arguments.

But if you think of the 2 as itself being an operator, then the notation x2 is postfix.

The alternative computer notation "pow(x,2)" is prefix.

So I guess the complete answer is that power is either prefix, postfix, infix, or none of the above -- depending on your choice of language to express it.

-----

Also, when you omit the * in mathematical notation, such as 2x, then in that specific case the multiplication operator is neither prefix, postfix, or infix.

The decision about whether something is "infix" is made based on the actual language notation used. When the language notation changes, it can actually cause operators to change their classification.

For example, if you use one of those old HP calculators, then every operator becomes postfix.

>>60336389
>in uni for engineering
>paranoid of calculator fuckery so every input is wrapped in paranthesis
Suffering at its finest

>>60347140

(cont.)

Another reason why "PEMDAS" is incomplete is because it doesn't include information about any postfix operators.

For example, ! is a postfix operator, so if x = 2, then there's a question about which of these is true:

2x! = 4
2x! = 24

... the answer depends on the relative precedence of multiplication and factorial. There is a standard answer to this question, but it requires yet another precedence rule to memorize.

Basically, PEMDAS is so vastly oversimplified that it causes all kinds of ambiguities and confusion -- which is easily demonstrated by all these threads that capitalize on the confusion.

It's sad that people continue to wallow in this confusion for year after year, instead of learning the complete analysis. But, unfortunately, you're not going to be exposed to the complete analysis until about year 2 or 3 as an undergraduate in computer science. So the confusion and oversimplifications will probably continue forever.

>>60343537
>putting a multiplication symbol inbetween the two and parenthesis and not in the other
I see your tricks fucboi

>>60347140
>>60347316
We're talking single-line notation here of course withut sub- or superscript. If we weren't, the fraction would clear to everyone.

I don't know why you included all the other ramblings in your reply.
Have I ever said something in favour of PEMDAS? Except that it's slightly less retarded than your stupid "PFEMDAS"?

>Inbox 4 BIDMAS

>>60347317
i believe it is doing that automatically

>>60326761 (OP)
>not using postfix notation
2 1 + 6 2 / *

File: Screenshot_2017-05-12-20-21-23.png (48KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 720x1280px

my fucking phone just gave up

Prove 1 + 1= 2

Prove 1 x 1= 1

>>60329652
>>60329821
>>60330377
Correct, the answer is 1. I don't know who invented this left to right bullshit. This is how I learned it in college.

>>60326761
Do some more testing OP. My father is a retired physics teacher. He says it's 1.

>>60349646
>I don't know who invented this left to right bullshit. This is how I learned it in college.
How shitty has your college have to be?
Please tel me what you think 1 / 2 / 3 results in.

File: fuckyoureducation.png (18KB, 838x190px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 838x190px

>>60349646
wrong.
it's an invalid expression
(ISO 80000-2)

File: IMG_20170513_022133.jpg (3MB, 2340x4160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2340x4160px

There is only one right answer.
>we calculator itt

>>60349895
why not 3/2?
After all "left-to right is bullshit"

>>60349646
Its actually input/output convention, with 1 line io from left to right, you get 9, but the correct answer in Mathematic In/out is 1.

>>60349802
1/0.67

Stay in school or don't, son. Nobody cares.

>>60349896
I wouldn't write it like that. If someone else wrote it in a field book, I'd know how find the error and correct it. Does that make me better educated than you? Yes it does. State funding at a private school. Eat it.

>>60350201
the ability to be corrected doesn't make it valid.
besides, without means for verification it is impossible to correct this error.

>>60327005
>6/(2*(2+1)) = 6/(2*3) = 6/6 = 1

This. It's 1.

>>60350286
Your inability to correct procedural errors makes you unqualified to work with numbers.

>>60351442
how are you going to correct this error without knowing the authors intention?

File: IMG-20170511-WA0000.jpg (129KB, 1080x1053px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1080x1053px

>>60347317
>>60347665
Yes, is the Texas instruments Software that adds the multiplication symbol automatically

Highlighted is how I wrote the expression