right?

this should mean 6/2(1+2)=1

(a)*(b) and a*b is only equivalent when a,b are both fully reduced expressions

a(b) is equivalent to a*b IFF b is a fully reduced expression

>>8955804
no, it means your mother drank when she was pregnant

>>8955808
i kno they are equivalent im asking if you treat them the same way. a*b are two values being multiplied together where a(b) gets treated as a single value.
this really only matters because of retarted equajuns

>>8955823
You treat them the same way. Parentheses are useful if you want to clarify the order of operations, say if you have a(2+b) it means you multiply a with 2+b.

you must choose a convention and stick with it. these retarded "problems" usually mix the use of explicit multiplication signs with the convention that adjacence of operators means multiplication. another convention is that in math notation all parentheses are necessary ones, so you can write a space b and read it as a times b, but you cannot write a(b) with no reason for the parentheses and expect it to be read in any other way than function a applied to argument b.

>>8955863
This

And you shouldn't really use * for multiplication unless your a brainlet. It means the Hermitian adjoint.

>>8955804
This is a very silly question but...
Do you write the second step as 6/2(3) or 6/2*3?

I know it's poorly written on purpose but I am curious about this detail... I don't do math since forever and I don't remember how I used to solve that

>>8955804
Correct

>>8955803
If you're a physicist.

>>8956230
Both of those are the same.

File: detective.png (470KB, 507x430px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 507x430px

>>8955804
For the absolutely correct answer: Well, if you go back to classical math texts like Teutsche's Algebra, it'll list a/a+b as a/(a+b). However if you look at, say, Wolfram, it'll do a/a+b as (a/a) + b. So it seems that both are right, correct?
Alas, both of these are technically wrong in the modern world, because the question itself is wrong. ISO standards say you're not to simply use / or the obelus when representing division, at least without extremely clear brackets. You should specify if it means 6/(2(1+2)) or (6/2)(1+2).

>>8955804
the true standard for this is how a computer would read it.
first off you cant do a(b), it has to be a*b ( or a*(b) whatever)

then it's 6/2*(1+2) which is 3*(1+2) which is 9.

>>8956510
>+
My mistake, I meant a/a*b instead of a/a+b in the first few sentences (though funnily enough Teutsche's Algebra still works out in the way I described for that case).

>>8956568
...You do realise people program computers, right?

How "a computer" reads it is not some objective independent fact.

>>8955803
they both act as top right. if i wanted both to be in parenthesis id put them both in parenthesis. please dont tell me ive been wrong after all these years