Does /g/ know basic arithmetic?

IPhone is flat out wrong here no matter how you twist it

>>61022401
6/6 is 1

That's just fucking retarded. Phone doesn't know order of operations.

Oh god white ppl dont know how calculations work

>>61022465
Kys nigger.

>>61022401
phone is reading it as (6/2)(2+1)
the Casio is reading it as 6 divided by 2(2+1)

File: nine.png (16KB, 640x369px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 640x369px

The way I learnt how to do it is like this


From left to right
Brackets first
* / next
+ - next

It's 9 senpai

>>61022486
And the phone is right.

The phone is right tho

1. brackets
2.6/2
3.3*3

6/2(2+1)
6/2(3)
6/2 * 3
3 * 3
9
Multiplication and Division are done on the same step, from left to right. The calculator messes up here by doing the (2 * 3) bit before the (6 / 2) bit.

>>61022401
Casio is right, what kind of a dumb faggot programmed that calculator in the left?

>>61022414
>>61022454
>>61022516
>ITT: American Education

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

If the answer was to equal 1, this is because the entire section under 6 would be considered the denominator. In order to do this, the problem would have to be written like this: 6/(2*(1+2))
However, since the problem is written vaguely, you have no choice but to interpret it as a left to right mathematical equation. 6/2(2+1) is going to equal 9.

File: depends.png (9KB, 407x356px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 407x356px

>>61022516

The divided by symbol is a tricky devil as the problem isn't written out as the fraction 6/2. The divided by symbol could in some cases imply that the number(s) before it is the numerator and the number(s) after are the denominator. This information is provided in the Casio's manual for clarification.

>>61022401
shitty android is correct.

2 completely different operations due to the way they are written.

Neither the calculator or phone are right and wrong because the OP didn't specify which Operation was the one he wanted to do.

The only real answer is to bracket everything and don't let assumptions as to order be assumed.

>>61022401
It's 9
6:2*(2+1)=6:2*3=3*3=9
you retards

>>61022597
ayyy redmi

>>61022486
Haha im not a nigger
Sad

Here's how it's taught in pajeetland.
B-BRACKETS
O-OF
D-DIVISION
M-MULTIPLICATION
A-ADDITION
S-SUBTRACTION

Bodmas in short. Division and multiplication have the same precedence and are evaluated from left to right. The same applies to Addition and subtraction. It's actually better to supply the much needed parenthesis when possible.

>>61022401
>let's write ambiguous equation and laught that people can't solve it
Don't. The worst point is division sign, because you don't know what it represents (and then there's also slash which can go both ways too). I don't know much about operation order, but creating ambiguity on purpose is a sign of borderline retardation. Just use brackets more if you aren't sure.
Left is right because it's 6 divided by 2, then multiplied by 3. It assumes (6/2)(2+1)
Right is right because it's 6 divided by 2 multiplied by 3. Is assumes 6/(2(2+1)

>>61022552
American here, the iPhone's right.

>>61022613
>2 completely different operations due to the way they are written
Wrong. There is no ambiguity.

>>61022771
Especially since putting a scalar next to parentheses implies you are multiplying what is in the parentheses by that scalar. The way it is in the OP is extremely ambiguous, also ignores the convention used for the calculatior isn't the same as the phone

>>61022401
My old Sharp gives me an error. I have to be more specific as it doesn't assume anything apparently.

You're fucking RETARDED.
1. 6/2(2+1)=1
2. (6/2)(2+1)=9
We're dealing with the first option, so the answer is fucking 1. No, it doesn't magically turn into 9 with your retarded mental gymnastics, that's what the second calculation would be.

>>61022401
Yes

>broken math AGAIN
>endless shitstorm AGAIN

congratulations on being still a mentally challenged 12 year old /g/

>>61022877
Except that multiplication and division have the same priority so it goes left to right. You're a retard.

File: test.webm (70KB, 232x398px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 232x398px

Of course

>>61023070
>order of operations
Are you a fucking 3rd grader? Then go ask your math teacher why it's wrong you fuckface.

>>61022414
>>61022454
>>61022516
>>61022877
Retards.

>>61022491
>>61022499
>>61022513
>>61022487
>>61022578
>>61022642
This

>>61022613
You're wrong.
a(b+c) universally means a*(b+c)
So the equation is x/a*(b+c)
b+c is calculated first, which is 2+1 = 3
Then all you're left with is 6/2*3 and the operations go from left to right.
6/2 = 3, 3*3 = 9
Basic. Fucking. Math.

>>61022877
6/2(2+1) = (6/2)(2+1) = 9
why are you calculating shit from right to left? kys, arab.

>>61023131
>Pulling non existing brackets out of your ass.
KYS unfulfilled magician.

>>61023131
The fuck are you talking about, retard?

>>61023144 Meant for >>61023138

>>61023154
So not only you're dumb, but also illiterate.

>>61022401

Everyone who thinks the '2' right before the parenthesis should be torn away from it and 6 should be devided by that 2 first are either trolling or completely retarded (or American, of course).

>>61022401
P L E A S E
L
E
A
S
E

PAY ATTENTION TO .

M Y ...

D E A R .

A U N T .

S A L L Y
A
L
L
Y

>>61023187
PEMDAS says to do parentheses then multiplication, after adding 1 and 2 the next step is to multiply 6 by 2.

>>61023201
>PEMDAS
another retard.

>>61023206
ebin

>Multiplication and Division have the same priority so you go left to right memers shitting up another thread
It's time to go back to school kids.

>>61023201

Doing the terms inside the parentheses has NOTHING to do with fucking up what happens with the '2' on front.

>>61022802
Wrong. There is ambiguity.

Every calculation has brackets. Order of operations is just a guide to how brackets that aren't placed are distributed.

Basically, wrap everything in brackets so there is no ambiguity in how it will be interpreted, because once everything is properly bracketed all calculators will give the same answers.

>>61022454
Do you know the difference between left and right you shitcunt?

File: wolframalphasaysyouarewrong.png (63KB, 666x656px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 666x656px

>>61023227

>>61023239
>Do you know the difference between left and right you shitcunt?
Do you have an elementary school level understanding of orders of operations?

pemdas is not literal

it's
pe
md
as

all on the same line solve from left to right

the phone is correct

File: DoesIt.png (263KB, 520x377px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 520x377px

>>61023083
>>61023138
>>61023144
>>61023154
>>61023223

>do this on my casio fx-82
>changes the calculation to 6/(2(2+1))
that is not what I entered you piece of shit

Phone is right. Brackets first, then left to right since division and multiplication have same priority.
Half of you niggers need an education. Although I'll admit I thought calc was right at first since I read division as subtraction but did division in my head anyway.

>>61022401
So I guess now we know the answer to that question, OP, given most of the replies in this thread.

>>61023278
Yes it is.

Anyone saying 9 seriously needs to finish school. The level of education on this board is appalling.

>>61023325
>anyone saying the correct answer needs to finish school

>>61022777
Its not an ambiguous equation though. You perform all operations within brackets, then all division operations, then all multiplication operations.

The ambiguity comes from the fact that the phone and calculator use the / to refer to different operations. On the phone, it is a division, on the calculator it's used to denote a fraction.

Both devices have been given different equations, hence the different result

>>61023348
>then all division operations, then all multiplication operations
literally kys yourself

>>61022802
There's no ambiguity, but they are two different equations due to the iPhone and Casio using different syntaxes

>>61023325
t. retard/baiter.
If you ever did something like this in college you'd fail. He obviously didn't enter that. It would be correct if "/" meant fraction but it doesn't, it means division. The calculator is just wrong.

It's sad to see how terrible American education is

File: 1493891792611.gif (1MB, 284x342px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 284x342px

This thread has convinced me that /g/ is actually the most retarded board on this website.

Burgers eternally BTFO on 3d grade math.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6%2F2(2%2B1)

>>61023359
Why are you on a tech board if you don't know what order math works in?

>>61022401

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

There is no ambiguity, just faggots ITT that couldn't pass basic Junior High School arithmetic.

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

It looks like the Casio interprets it as a fraction:
6
---------
2(2+1)

Because there's no * between 2 and (2+1). So I guess it boils down to how you want to treat that lack of a * operator.

>>61023396
>pemdas
>junior high
try middle school

>>61023404
*grade school

>>61023402
>So I guess it boils down to how you want to treat that lack of a * operator.
And since there's no question about how you "want" to treat it when there's a clear rule how you "should" treat it, then the result should be pretty clear.

>not using reverse polish notation for everything

>>61023422
>there's no question about how you "want" to treat it when there's a clear rule how you "should" treat it
Name the rule and give me a source on it, please.

>>61023425
Mah nigga

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Mnemonics
>These mnemonics may be misleading when written this way, especially if the user is not aware that multiplication and division are of equal precedence, as are addition and subtraction. Using any of the above rules in the order "addition first, subtraction afterward" would incorrectly evaluate the expression
Top lel, "technology" board.

>>61023278
> webm or it didn't happen

>>61023415
elementary school*

>>61023445
Same thing, you fucking pedant.

>>61022401
that casio calculator went full retard
6/2*(2+1)
= 3*(2+1)
=3*3 = 9

File: 9.png (8KB, 547x159px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 547x159px

>>61022401

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

>>61023477
No.

Python 2.7.10 (default, Feb 7 2017, 00:08:15)
[GCC 4.2.1 Compatible Apple LLVM 8.0.0 (clang-800.0.34)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> 6/2*(2+1)
9
>>>

>>61023415
>>61023445
either way, junior high? come on

This is what you get for not using reverse polish notation, ameritards. Enjoy your brackets.

>>61023487
>python

File: 1487929902959.gif (1MB, 195x229px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 195x229px

>>61023477

>>61023468
>that casio calculator went full retard
But it didn't. It interpreted the expression as a fraction due to the omission of the * operator.

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

I've yet to see any authoritative source for or against such an interpretation.

>>61023493
Jr high = middle school
Grade school = elementary school

>>61023431
It's as if they don't know that division is multiplication, and that subtraction is addition.

File: 1373484862686.jpg (10KB, 216x300px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 216x300px

>>61023477
>form right to left
it's from left to right

File: 1453236190275.jpg (286KB, 1253x849px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1253x849px

>>61023523

>>61023131
>b+c is calculated first, which is 2+1 = 3
Did you skip school?

When you are multiplying something inside a bracket, you multiply with all of the members.
4*(2+5) is not 4*7
It's 4*2 + 4*5.

That's just how math works. You can't just invent your own special rules.

>>61023363
>It would be correct if "/" meant fraction but it doesn't, it means division. The calculator is just wrong.
They're the same thing.

>>61023402
>Because there's no * between 2 and (2+1). So I guess it boils down to how you want to treat that lack of a * operator.
The presence of a * or not is irrelevant. a*b and a(b) are identical. * Is used because it is more convenient. The actual meaning doesn't change.

>>61023363
>It would be correct if "/" meant fraction but it doesn't, it means division
I honestly can't believe there are people this ignorant about 3rd grade math.

>>61023554
>The presence of a * or not is irrelevant.
Source.

>>61023567
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication#Implicit

I've got a PhD in Mathematics and can get any job I want with a starting salary of 6/2(500*200) dollars, the answer is 9

>>61022401
For simplicity: They should both echo Syntax Error and demand an operand to preceed the stuff inside the parenthesis.

>>61023595
>For simplicity
You mean for retards, right? Because lack of an operand implies multiplication.

>>61023551
It works both ways. Distributive property, idiot.
Your b8 is terrible. In case you're not baiting, I'm sorry to inform you but your IQ is barely 2 digit.

>>61023590
>starting salary of 0.0003 dollars

>>61023583
>This implicit usage of multiplication can cause ambiguity [...] in the correct determination of the order of operations.
Try again.

>>61023551
Are you implying 4*2 + 4*5 doesn't equal 4*7 ???

>>61023583
>In algebra, multiplication involving variables is often written as a juxtaposition (e.g., xy for x times y or 5x for five times x). The notation can also be used for quantities that are surrounded by parentheses (e.g., 5(2) or (5)(2) for five times two). This implicit usage of multiplication can cause ambiguity when the concatenated variables happen to match the name of another variable, when a variable name in front of a parenthesis can be confused with a function name, or in the correct determination of the order of operations.
>This implicit usage of multiplication can cause ambiguity ... in the correct determination of the order of operations.

File: wat.png (3KB, 112x86px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 112x86px

>>61022401
ITT: Americans attempt to understand PEMDAS and fail

>>61023606
Try what again? You asked for sauce, I provided it. I never argued it wouldn't cause ambiguity if your math skills are subpar. The order of operations doesn't change if you put a multiplication sign there or just assume it.

>>61023598
>Not implying multiplication - You mean for retards, right?
Yes! We're moving to a new world (unless you missed the news), and people getting less intelligent by the hour.

So lets not force people who can't think to try and think. Make the world easier instead.
Heck, kids doesn't even learn cursive in school thesed days.

>>61023631
>You asked for sauce, I provided it
Your source literally contradicts you.

File: 121ugt.jpg (37KB, 480x561px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x561px

>>61023518
good one

>>61023641
It literally doesn't.

>>61023656
>>61023646
It says that implicit multiplication can cause ambiguity, and that's all it says about it. Nowhere does it state how expressions as in OP should be interpreted.

>>61022401

Dear World --

Now you understand how Republicans ended up in control of our government. Please send help.

>>61023668
Allow me to point out the relevant part because you seem to suffer from terminal lack of reading comprehension.
>In algebra, multiplication involving variables is often written as a juxtaposition (e.g., xy for x times y or 5x for five times x). The notation can also be used for quantities that are surrounded by parentheses (e.g., 5(2) or (5)(2) for five times two).

It literally states how you evaluate said expressions here. The fact that retards can interpret this incorrectly is irrelevant to the result or evaluation.

File: 1496771989529.jpg (2KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x125px

>>61023669
Is this why trump won?

>>61023604
*$300000

>>61023710
Agreed. Half this thread are idiots and baiters.

>>61023727
0.000000001*300000$

>>61023710
y / 5(x-z) =\= y / 5x - z

>>61023710
The fact that literal drooling morons like you can't even get close to understanding the source of the problem, and keep thinking it's an order of operations issue, doesn't change the fact that this expression is just one example of an ambiguous fraction. You have not provided a source for your claim that 6/2(2+1) can't be correctly interpreted as the following fraction:

6
----------
2/(2+1)

You may not acknowledge this simple fact, due to your being a low-IQ inbred rural retard, but higher education institutions definitely do.

>>61022401
How the fuck did it get 1? Is BEDMAS wrong now or something?

>>61023710
That sentence is immediately followed by
>This implicit usage of multiplication can cause ambiguity when the concatenated variables happen to match the name of another variable, when a variable name in front of a parenthesis can be confused with a function name, or in the correct determination of the order of operations.

Once again, the correct answer is to wrap everything proper brackets so that the order will never be ambiguously determined.

>>61023726
Trump won because we calculated the ratio of votes with a CASIO

>>61023768
More evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Exceptions

>>61023774
The order(s) of operations are memes.

As long as both questioner and answerer agree on which order to perform what operations, the answer will never be wrong.

>>61023131
2x is 2*x but that doesn't mean you can treat them like two separate entities.

>>61023788
Thanks. Quoting the relevant bits:
>there can be ambiguity in the use of the slash ('/') symbol in expressions such as 1/2x.
>in some of the academic literature, multiplication denoted by juxtaposition (also known as implied multiplication) is interpreted as having higher precedence than division, so that 1/2x equals 1/(2x), not (1/2)x.
>For example, the manuscript submission instructions for the Physical Review journals state that multiplication is of higher precedence than division with a slash
>this is also the convention observed in prominent physics textbooks such as the Course of Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshitz and the Feynman Lectures on Physics.
>Many academics consider the mnemonic PEMDAS as non-applicable with implied groupings that are ambiguous, such as 1/2x, where the lack of an explicit operator × between the 2 and the x implies a grouping of the 2 with the x

File: download.jpg (8KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 259x194px

RPN master race

>>61022491
its user error

this video explains why arguing over the correct order of operations is futile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9h1oqv21Vs

>>61023746
3*100000=300000

>>61022639
this

>>61023774
>How the fuck did it get 1? Is BEDMAS wrong now or something?
No the notation in OPs post, is just very ambiguous. It could be interpreted as

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

or

6
---- (2+1)
2

Which give 1 and 9 as the solution respectively. PEDMAS/BEDMAS is somewhat flawed, which is why it's best just to avoid using the ÷ symbol and write out everything as fractions. I'd argue the the first interpretation is actually better, but whatever.

>>61023857
6/20000=0.0003

>>61022401
The iPhone is wrong, since it doesn't use that division sign correctly.

6÷2(2+1) = 1
6/2(2+1) = 9

>>61023873
I agree with you, and here are some sources supporting your conclusion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Exceptions
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Extras/CommonErrors/AlgebraErrors.aspx
https://math.berkeley.edu/~gbergman/misc/numbers/ord_ops.html

File: fucking idiots.png (2KB, 335x107px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 335x107px

How can you not know this basic fucking shit?

Why are some of you retards thinking this is (6/2)(2+1)??

>>61022401
Pemdas nigguh!!

(2+1) = 3
2 x 3 = 6
6 \6 = 1

How is this difficult to understand?

>>61022401
Phone is right:

6*(1/2)*(2+1)
6*0.5*3
3*3
9

File: 9.png (17KB, 520x226px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 520x226px

>>61023768
>>61024018
Here:
1. 6/2(2+1) = 6/2*(2+1) = (6/2)*(2+1) = (3)*(3) = 9
2. 6/(2(2+1)) = 6/(2*(2+1)) = 6/(2*(3)) = 6/(6) = 1
6/2(2+1) =/= 6/(2(2+1))
The first scenario is the one given. No matter how you look at it the answer is 9 and anyone mathematically literate can see this. The fraction looks like this;
6
-- * (2+1) = 3*(2+1) = 9
2

The ONLY way it would be 1 is the equation was given as any of the equations in the 2nd case. In which case it would be;
6
-------- = 6/6 = 1
2(2+1)

The correct answer is 9.

>>61023899
all three (÷, /, :) mean the same thing and are universally recognized as the symbol for division. Fractions are actually written as fractions, not an expression with /. Also all divisions are fractions and can be written as such, and the correct way to interpret the OPs equation is explained above. So, you're wrong.

>>61024023
>Pemdas nigguh!!
If anything, blindly applying PEMDAS results in 9:
6/2*(2+1)
6/2*3
3*3
9

>>61022414
>iPhone

>>61024040
You're a retard and the expression is ambiguous. Nobody cares about your inferior thought processes. I and others have already provided sources confirming that the omission of the * operator IS a source of ambiguity, and that respectable scientific publications use a different convention from the one you're trying to peddle as a God-given universal edict. This debate is close. You lose.

>>61024077
>I can't comprehend math so everyone loses!
Retard.

>>61024085
>sources explicitly confirming the ambiguity don't count
>respectable mathematicians and physicists can't comprehend math because they don't comply my God-given edict
There's just no point arguing with the sort of low-IQ trash that posts on /g/. You're just another drop in the bucket of evidence.

>>61022613
OP didn't specify which Operation was the one he wanted to do.
the fucking division, as it's shown in both fucking cases. there is no fraction sign, what the fuck are you even talking about?

>>61024106
Kys

File: Screenshot_20170622_131256.png (3KB, 242x61px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 242x61px

>>61022401
Why do we have these threads every summer?
Writing it in a calculator should not change how the math is done.
If you write it properly, there is no confusion

>>61024114
Sources confirming that you are wrong:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Exceptions

>there can be ambiguity in the use of the slash ('/') symbol in expressions such as 1/2x.
>in some of the academic literature, multiplication denoted by juxtaposition (also known as implied multiplication) is interpreted as having higher precedence than division, so that 1/2x equals 1/(2x), not (1/2)x.
>For example, the manuscript submission instructions for the Physical Review journals state that multiplication is of higher precedence than division with a slash
>this is also the convention observed in prominent physics textbooks such as the Course of Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshitz and the Feynman Lectures on Physics.
>Many academics consider the mnemonic PEMDAS as non-applicable with implied groupings that are ambiguous, such as 1/2x, where the lack of an explicit operator × between the 2 and the x implies a grouping of the 2 with the x

https://math.berkeley.edu/~gbergman/misc/numbers/ord_ops.html
>A problem that hit the Internet in early 2011 is, "What is the value of 48/2(9+3) ?"
>Depending on whether one interprets the expression as (48/2)(9+3) or as 48/(2(9+3)) one gets 288 or 2.
>There is no standard convention as to which of these two ways the expression should be interpreted, so, in fact, 48/2(9+3) is ambiguous.

http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Extras/CommonErrors/AlgebraErrors.aspx
>the whole section on ambiguous fractions

>>61024055
Doesnt order go parentheses,multiplication,division? People saying multiply and divide are equal? If this is true why bother having an order of ops? I read it as :
6/2 (2+1) = 6/2 x 3 = 6 "2 x 3 being the calculation here,multiply next op leaving" 6/6 = 1

>>61024159
>Doesnt order go parentheses,multiplication,division?
The root of the issue isn't about precedence of multiplication vs division, but rather whether or not omitting the multiplication operator implies grouping. Also, no, the order doesn't go that way. Multiplication and division normally have the same order of precedence.

>>61024159
>Doesnt order go parentheses,multiplication,division?
no
>People saying multiply and divide are equal?
they are
>If this is true why bother having an order of ops?
Order of operations allow you to calculate a combination of factors and have the mathematical rules apply.
>I read it as :
6/2 (2+1) = 6/2 x 3 = 6 "2 x 3 being the calculation here,multiply next op leaving" 6/6 = 1
You read it wrong.

When you multiply something to a fraction, you multiply the nominator.
There is no rule about implicit multiplication signs that changes this.

File: (you).jpg (70KB, 488x393px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 488x393px

>>61024202
>doesn't know the correct answer
>better post an anti-burger meme
Euros...

6
__

2*(2+1)


6
_____

2*3


6
___

6


1
__

1


1

>>61024230
>When you multiply something to a fraction, you multiply the nominator.
>There is no rule about implicit multiplication signs that changes this.
Why are you too retarded to comprehend that the issue is that it's unclear what the fraction is supposed to be, and that different mathematicians/physicists/publications use different conventions to determine it? It seems like anyone with an IQ above 85 should be able to grasp this simple fact.

Phew! look at this fellas muricans dnt know mathematics
I guess they better stick to school shooting

>>61022401
Okay how the fuck did the scientific calc get this wrong

>>61024365
Because it's a shitty casio.

>>61022401
>tfw you buy an overpriced piece of shit from the 1980s because your college says you have to
>it gets basic arithmetics wrong

>>61024450
>overpriced piece of shit
It's like $10 where I live. Still a piece of shit tho.

>>61024464
Oh yeah they are cheap tbf. I thought they were on TI levels of overpricedness.

>>61024365
Because >>61024145

File: wa.jpg (43KB, 685x724px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 685x724px

>>61023250
you are fucking wrong

>>61024365
the calc did it right.
And the phone too.

Both are right. The difference is that the Casio made the calculation in integers and the phone used rational numbers.

It isn't hard to understand of you went to the school when you were a kid

>>61024801
>Both are right
>t. burger

>>61024808
>there's an objectively correct universal way to determine the meaning of a symbolic expression
>t. brainlet

>>61024808
nope, not burger, dude.

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

the sign ÷ is the only wrong thing in both

>>61024808
Both are right.
There is an assumption on how implicit multiplication should be handled and each picked a valid assumption. >>61024145

They are only wrong if you didn't get the result you were expecting, and the result you are expecting is formed by your assumption of how the implicit multiplication is handled (aka where you are inserting brackets to handle it).

>>61024754
>perhaps if I alter the equation they'll believe me!
: means ratio, not division. So if you had 8 : 2 + 6 it would still be 1.

Thanks to common core there are no wrong answers. Everyone is a winner

>>61024886
>: means ratio
we are talking about real math, not architecture shit, faggot

>>61023610
No, he's saying that you're not supposed to add the multiplication after resolving the brackets but simultaneously. 6/2(2+1) = 6/6 = 1

Why I have up on algebra in high school.

>Class get your TI82 out and follow my incorrect math

File: wtf-am-i-reading.png (67KB, 404x404px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 404x404px

>>61024975
>simultaneously

>>61024978
*why I gave up on

>>61024973
>ratios aren't math
what are you, 8?

>>61025009
yes, are you 5?

File: 1443908927995.gif (2MB, 448x252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 448x252px

>this whole time these arguments were in the end just yurope vs murrica

>>61024978
>>61024990
you should try with discrete mathematics

Ppl can't even get math right?
What next?
Learning abcd
Get a life faggots

Brackets
Implicit multiplication
*/
+-
from left to right

meaning:
6/2*(2+1) == 9
6/2(2+1) == 1
phone is wrong

>>61023375
Multiplication and division go together, same with addition and subtraction. You perform those operations from left to right.

>>61025559
>Amerifat education
Division and multiplication are the same.

6/2 = 6*(1/2)

>>61026873
>posting a non-sequitur to a non-sequitur
>euro "education"

>>61025559
>implicit multiplication somehow takes precedence over regular multiplication
t o p k e k
burgers, everyone

>>61025124
That's what most arguments boil down to.

>>61022401
I know enough basic arithmetic to know that neither one is technically wrong, the problem statement is just ambiguously formulated.

here we go again


let a=(2+1)
then we have 6/2a
key distinction you need to make is 6/2*a and 6/2a. Since we have the 2 pressed right to the brackets, it's an implied factor from the brackets, and not another seperate element,
but it's one of those "nobody pays attention to it" rules like the an hero/an hospital thing. So you get bollocks simplists who spout their simple version as if it's the only possible truth.

>>61026955
>I don't know logic, I just say things

PEMDAS
If you still get 9, you have done serious problems

>>61027194
Go ahead and explain the process so I can laugh again

>>61022877
here's the thing, you can't do it in one fucking step, and you have to remove any shorthands used, 2(2+1) === 2* (2+1) unless specified with further brackets.

1. 6/2(2+1)
2. 6/2(3)
3. 6/2*3
4. 3*3
5. 9

this is why you show your work you dumb fucks, it keeps you from looking stupid by violating simple rules of arithmetic.

>>61023201
holy shit your teachers should be fired

Parenthesis
Exponentiation (incl. radicals)
Multiplication (inc. division)
Addition (inc. subtraction)

multiplication and division are the same exact operation, thus must be considered equally prioritized.

>>61027194
>Please Excuse My Desperate Autistic Sperging
Okay, you're excused.

>>61025559
Literally ran it through my Nspire just for the sake of confirmation.
Even it understands order of operations and gets a 9.

File: 2859446.jpg (566KB, 1280x1173px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 1280x1173px

>>61027350
point before line
because division has also a line in it, the multiplication comes first. the answer is 1.

>>61027420
they're the same damn thing

File: iso8.png (40KB, 1319x296px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1319x296px

>>61022401
it's simply invalid
:^)

>>61022401
Does youtube?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZifngGSnB-8

You decide.

File: hp.jpg (161KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1000x665px

>>61027491
also

File: 1476540933228.jpg (4KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 200x200px

>>61027158
>posting another non-sequitur after being called out on it
>euro education
>inb4 you do it again

>>61027571
>Surely no one will notice the things I put around my equation in order to ruin the syntax for the calculator

>>61027685
sorry i'm using RPN mode

File: Teacher explains left-to-right operator associativity in Common Core.jpg (68KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x600px

Either is correct, however teachers are now standardizing on left-to-right associativity. This should reduce confusion in the future and prepare students to use spreadsheet applications like Excel and many programming languages that have left-to-right associativity.

>>61027460
>the same
now you're making things up

>>61027607
People like you who think they're so smart while actually being dumb are frustrating.

You just proved you have no idea what a non-sequitur is.

File: whatisit.png (3KB, 414x238px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 414x238px

????????????

>>61027571
excellent calculator choice

>>61027685
You need those apostrophes to write an algebraic expression while in RPN mode

>>61027765
post the other version of this image where she's looking at a projection explaining how to use imaginary numbers to solve simple fractions

File: ss.png (9KB, 557x181px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 557x181px

>>61023131
bc confirms

it's 9

>>61027864
-81

>>61023372
Nah, we have same threads on /a/ and /sci/ and people are similarly retarded there.

>>61022401
Casio is pretty dumb. Wouldn't use for past middle school tests.

>>61022401
No and it's killing me. The education system in this country (US here) is seriously flawed. Common Core is probably a turn for the worse. The fact that mathematics is being competed by women shows that our education system is indeed flawed. Men need arithmetic to make useful decisions while women need it very little.

>>61022877
>You're fucking RETARDED.
>1. 6/2(2+1)=9
>2. 6/(2(2+1))=1
>We're dealing with the first option, so the answer is fucking 9. No, it doesn't magically turn into 1 with your retarded mental gymnastics, that's what the second calculation would be.
That's how stupid you sound.
The order is:
1. Parenthesis
2. Multiplication and division.
3. Addition and substraction.
In case there are two or more in the same level, from left to right.

>>61028115
>start from left
fucking leftists and liberals. want everyone to be equal and now fuck with mathematics.

>>61028186
But anon, you go to the right.

>>61027841
>being this painfully retarded
A non-sequitur is when "people" like you try to make a counter-argument, but their statements don't logically follow eachother or anything said by anyone else, but rather constitute a pile of worthless trash, like every single post you will ever write.

My brain says "one" and my TI-89 Titanium says "nine."

>>61028114
To make matters more concise, >>61027272
this is exactly why I don't understand math... and why our schools should be demolished and have temples built in their stead, God knowing I will get a better education there.

>>61027137
>it's an implied factor from the brackets
lol what

>>61028216
I'm right to begin with.

File: I have pretended to be mentally retarded.jpg (37KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x480px

>>61023828
/thread

Is /g/ 'merely pretending' or are you guys really that stupid?

>>61028340
>Lifshitz

>>61024145
>>61023828
>two /g/entoomen have functioning brains
colour me surprised.

>>61023131
It hurts to fucking read your shit.

Do you not fucking fundamentally understand what the fuck syntax is?
And that both fucking operations are written in different Syntax?

>>61028571
provide a reference to the standard stating that, faggot

File: IMG_20170622_190925.jpg (104KB, 480x737px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 480x737px

It's easier to program left to right precedences, but I learned multiplication first.
2 1 + 6 2 / *
RPN ftw

>>61027035
Thats because Eurofags can't win

>>61022401
That's an ambiguous expression and really it has no answer because it's not syntactically correct.

>>61028893
>not 6 2 / 2 1 + *

>>61028811
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculator_input_methods

See pretty much everything.

Regular android uses mathematical Display instead of regular AES.

>>61023131
This.
I think that reason why this is even questionable - American education.

>>61028935
>posting an encyclopedia entry on how to use calculator implementations
how's this relevant again?

File: 1482856492570.jpg (88KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 300x400px

>/g/ fights over a fucking 3rd grade math question

>>61022401
how did the calculator get 1? i don't even understand how to get 1 from that.
pretty sure the phone is right

File: 62122.png (11KB, 712x185px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 712x185px

let's step up the game

>>61022401
Pemdas:

Parenthesis first. Then exponents. Then multiply or divide by left--->right. Then add or subtract by left--->right.

Answer is 1.

>>61029297
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPe1aBW_YCg

>>61029291
-27

>>61029291
-1/3

>>61022401
PEMDAS

6÷2(2+1)

P
(2+1) = (3)

E
N/A

M
2(3) = 6

D

6÷6 = 1

A

N/A

S

N/A

ANSWER IS 1

>>61028240
Hahaha. That's not what a non-sequitur is you stupid fuck!

lrn2logic, kid.

>>61029291
6/-2(1+2)2
= 6/-2((1+2) * (1+2))
= 6/-2(1*1+1*2+2*1+2*2)
= 6/-2(1+2+4+2+4)
= 6/-2(13)
= 6/-26
= 3/-13
= -0,230769230769

>>61029919
three squared is nine, anon

>>61029994
I see. I didn't solve the brackets before multiplication in line three >>61029919
.

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

>>61029414
MD and AS are in the same step, operated in order from left to right.

>>61029866
That's actually exactly what it means, you drooling retard.

Enough to know you don't write fractions on one line.

>what is bodmas

the absolute state of this thread

>>61030213
I was never tought that or perhaps i forgot some of the fundamentals. Either way murica settin me up for failurr

6/2(2+1)
6/4+2

answer is 3.5 you nerds

...everyone's clear it's 9 now, right? any people who still insist 1 are baiting?

File: IMG_1208.jpg (112KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 480x640px

It's really happening.

Pic related

In this thread, stupid white people competing to be the dumbest.

Kys Retards

>>61022487
>Left to right
BODMAS you idiot. Bracket Orders Division Multiplication Addition Subtraction

>>61031584
You have an equation sign on the Casio.
I'd advise you to use it.

>>61028929
>not 6 2 / 2 1 + *
RPN has no precedences, it's left to right,
c o m m u t a t i v e

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

>>61031976
are you blind?

File: THIS SHITTER RIGHT HERE.jpg (11KB, 219x246px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 219x246px

>>61032131
No I'm not and I have multiple Casio calculators myself go read the manual.

>>61022401
OP this is top tier bait.

File: cenna.jpg (16KB, 480x318px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x318px

> tfw everyone is fighting over this shit

>>61023487
>>61023502
>python2

Python 3.5.3 (default, Jan 19 2017, 14:11:04) 
[GCC 6.3.0 20170118] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> print(6/2*(2+1))
9.0
>>> 

>6 / 2 * (2 +1)
>3 * (2 + 1)
> 6 + 1)
> 7

>>61032641
>whats BEDMAS

>>61032664
*PEMDAS

>>61022401
a) this post is bait as shit
b) order of operations is () → *,/ → +,-
c) stop inputing stupid syntax, but that calculator is still shit to fall for it

File: IMG-20170512-WA0005.jpg (599KB, 2336x4160px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 2336x4160px

>>61022401
for double the computing power

>>61032678
in canada we call those brackets while in 6th grade

>>61032767
In Canada you pronounce "lever" like fucking retards too, I'll stick with PEMDAS

>>61022401
the answer is 2.5

>>61029291
>>61029919
6/-2*(1+2)^2
6/-2*((1+2) * (1+2))
6/-2*(1*1 + 1*2 + 2*1 + 2*2)
6/-2*(1 + 2 + 2 + 4)
6/-2*9
-3*9
-27

File: The Only Winning Move Is Not to Play.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>61029291

>>61032799

I think your thinking of the British

I pronounce it like it looks, not spelled with 3 e's

>>61029291
I cheated cause I had no idea how to do that

>>> 6 / (-2) * (2+1) ** 2
-27.0
>>>

>>61032898
Either you're a minority when it comes to that or it's a requirement for Canadian narrators to pronounce words wrong.

>>61029919
>>61030177
Calculate from left to right, Ahmed.

>>61022401
Its apparent that the android calculator does not take into account order of operations. Nuff said

>>61022401
>>61022487
Order of operations
PEMDAS
Please excuse my dear aunt sally
Parentheses exponents multiplication division addition subtraction

6÷2(2+1)
3(2+1)
6+3
9
Yall retarded

>ITT
>Yuropoors are stupid enough to believe that numbers OUTSIDE the parentheses somehow get parentheses priority over multiplication/division

Just fucking nuke yourselves out of existence please? Take the sandniggers, cucks, and niggers with you too please.

File: niggers_dont_know_how_to_math_.jpg (6KB, 303x136px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 303x136px

>>61022401

>>61033012
It does though, that's why it got the correct answer.

>>61033128
See >>61024040

>>61033128
/thread

135 fags took the bait and somehow managed 288 posts

>>61033363

EDIT: Wow this blew up.

That sweet karma.

>>61033413
What?

>>61033587
reddit

fuck off, downvoted

>>61033607
What?

>>61033607

I know this is going to be downvoted but ...

File: [Asenshi] Little Witch Academia - 13 [70F4ADB6].mkv_snapshot_01.12_[2017.04.04_09.58.20].jpg (148KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1280x720px

>The order of operations in which one is to interpret a mathematical expression such as "2+3 * 5" is a convention. This means that a long time ago, people just decided on an order in which operations should be performed. It has nothing to do with magic or logic. Some people decided to adopt a way, and it has stuck ever since. It just makes communication a lot easier.

Literally convention. And convention for most of the world is
>you should do what is possible within parentheses first, then exponents, then multiplication and division (from left to right), and then addition and subtraction (from left to right). If parentheses are enclosed within other parentheses, work from the inside out.
If the question were made explicit in order of operations it would look like either
>(6/2)(2+1)
OR
>(6)/(2(2+1))

Problem solved, stop discussing this. You can't debate convention, but it would be nice if everyone used the same system.

>>61033729
>but it would be nice if everyone used the same system.
Actually, *who* is it that does not use this order of evaluation?

Everybody here is retarded.

It is almost universally agreed (c.f. any journalistic standards or any good textbooks) that multiplication by juxtaposition has higher precedence than division by / or ÷.

File: IMG_20170623_010853.png (249KB, 1803x986px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1803x986px

Dudes just put it exactly like this. I promise it will give you 1.

>people in this thread actually believe division and multiplication are the same step

P - Parenthesis
E - Exponents
M - Multiplication
D - Division
A - Addition
S - Subtraction

6/2(2+1)
PARENTHESIS - 6/2(3)
MULTIPLICATION - 2(3) = 6 WOAH
DIVISION - 6/6 = 1
SO THE ANSWER IS 1?

Did none of you take a middle school maths class? I'm disgusted at the amount of degenerates here.

>>61035095
MD or AS belong together, they have equal precedence and you go left to right on them.

>>61035095
Here, for repetition:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/operation-order-pemdas.html

>>61035364
>mathsisfun
>links to a joke
answer is 1, deal with it.

>>61034223
> It is almost universally agreed
... that this is not the case. Neither most programming languages nor most people have made this precedence by juxtaposition explicit.

It's also not taught, PEMDAS / BEDMAS / BIDMAS or whatever memorization helps also have no "J", nor does anyone teach people NOT to make multiplication explicit such as writing 6/2*(2+1).

Basically at this point you can safely assume juxtaposition has no precedence unless *explicitly indicated* that it is so in the specific context.

>>61035561
https://www.google.com/search?q=6%2F2(2%2B1)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6%2F2(2%2B1)

Doesn't really get much more authoritative than that at this point. It's 9.

>>61022401
So this... is the power of Android®...

I know it, im lacking in trigonometry, geometry and linear algebra which im planning to learn soon.

give me good books to pick it up

>>61035698
https://www.khanacademy.org
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/
Bronshtein & Semendyayev (obviously your local translated edition)
Wikipedia

And many more. I actually think the internet is pretty good at explaining maths - better than most books.

Also, these are seriously pretty good for introductory works. Though there is just linear algebra from the topics you mentioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manga_Guides

>>61035645
what's authoritative there? the first one already proved to be doing it wrong with their software, and the second is some social media jew shit and for all I know they might be those that suggested common core garbage.

>>61035645
do you even PEMDAS, bro?

>>61035953
> the first one already proved to be doing it wrong with their software
Wat.

> and the second is some social media jew shit
It's decided and over.
https://us.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yhs-invalid&p=6%2F2%282%2B1%29
https://www.baidu.com/s?wd=6%2F2%282%2B1%29

>>61036039
No, we just learned operator precedence and how to do the explicit / implicit parens.

I don't recall learning a mnemonic thing to go with it. It's simple enough to remember without.

>>61022589
best answer so far

>>61036049
Even my software based calculator says it's 9 but that only shows how much software developer suck these days because it's wrong. 1 is the correct answer.

>>61022401
Fucking retarded, why not avoid all this by simply adding together two numbers that equal 9? Example: 5+4, or 2+7....

The confusion is caused by not understanding that parentheses have two different meanings:

1: grouping
2: enclosing function arguments

So people see 2(2+1) and they think it's the application of a function, analogous to cos(2+1).

In the case of cos(2+1), the cosine is performed first before the division.

But in the case of 2(2+1), it's not a function -- it's multiplication -- so the normal left-to-right rule for multiplication and division applies.

To see this in action, compare these two:

https://www.google.com/search?q=6%2F2(1-1)

https://www.google.com/search?q=6%2Fcos(1-1)

>>61036299
what the fuck is a left to right rule?

3+4 is the same as 4+3
and 3*5 is the same as 5*3

who ever started this left to right bullshit should be shot.

>>61029291
216

>>61022771
>OF
do bongs call exponents "of"? Like x^3 to them is "x of 3"? What is wrong with them?

Also
{ } = braces
[ ] = brackets
( ) = parentheses

>>61036339

he means

>20/10*5 = 10

not

>20/10*5 = 0.4

>>61036424

I dont think so, im just guessing, but I think they would say to the power of, but just use of for the mneomic

>>61033338
woah now motherfucker you can't just start slinging vinculums around like that, when you do a vinculum like that you're implying parenthesis around the numerator and denominator

>>61036339
>what the fuck is a left to right rule?

The left-to-right rule says that when operators are at the same precedence, they are applied in a left to right order.

Examples:

3/4*5 -- perform the division first, then the multiplication

3*4/5 -- perform the multiplication first, then the division

In both cases, the order is determined by the left-to-right appearance of the operators.

Notice that people who believe that OP's example evaluates to 1 are applying the multiplication and division from right-to-left, rather than the standard left-to-right order.

(Please note that this applies ONLY if the operators are all at the same precedence level. If you have an expression like 3+4/5, then the left-to-right rule does NOT apply because + and / are at different precedence levels.)

It's good to remember that the left-to-right rule usually does not apply to the power operator. The standard interpretation of this expression:

2^3^4

is to perform 3^4 first, and then take 2 to the power of 81. Most languages that have a power operator (like Python) use a right-to-left rule for power.

>>61036449
>>61036590
choosing to break up the divisor in a random way and doing some bogus math on the counter is a "left to right rule"? did the jews invent this when they didn't get enough shekels or when did this even start to be a thing?

You can do it from left to right in this case:
6/2=3
3(2+1)
3*2=6 3*1=3
6+3=9

Follow PE(MD)(AS) if you are challenged.

File: HomerThinking.gif (19KB, 365x631px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 365x631px

you've got six free burger cuopons. you want to give them away because you feel like doing so. however your two friends want to share it with their siblings. both have two. are there enough coupons for everyone?

A) yes, six people, six cuopons. each will get one, there are enough.
B) after giving everyone a cuopon you suddenly still got nine out of the six coupons. who knows, how many people there was, they'll all become coupons sooner or later, MUHAHAHAHAH!

>>61022487
obvious b8. brackets indices division multiplaction addition subtraction. are you an american?