6?2(1+2)= ?

[southside1874]

You may do that, us real mathematicians would do it the proper way Read back to my earlier posts, it fully explains the rules in working out these simple equations. If you read it you will quickly understand why the 2nd set of brackets is unnecessary and therefore has little bearing on the final result. With little bearing, there is no need to include, and therefore it is not included.

 

But what do mathematicians actually work out The folk that use mathematics in real life situations and use a notation so they all understand the workings is surely a better use of mathematics than someone messing about with figures for probably no reason whatsoever. Mathematics is there for us to understand the effects of gravity, heat and light, density and how things react in our atmosphere. Its not there for the purpose of moving numbers around to come up with an answer. If we counted to 60 instead of 100 then most of the problems would be easier to resolve

[P-Dizzle]

There is no ambiguity, it's very straightforward. I have provided you with a full explanation as to why. If you can provide a counter argument that refutes my position and confirms your own let us read it. Just typing stuff out, and saying "it's 1 cos it is" has little relevance given the actual cold hard facts supporting the correct answer of 9. I think you are beaten. I think you are hurting now. Accept it, you'll feel better

 

I take it you didn't actually read my post?

 

To get the answer 9, you would need to isolate (3) from the two. But that is already accounted for under implied multiplication. Before you would divide, you would read 2(3) as 6, and you would not be able to detach (3) from the 2 and multiply it after division to give you the answer 9.

 

How is that so hard to comprehend? I've been explaining it in the most simple of terms, I really don't understand how you cannot see that 2(3) is a single entity and makes 6 before any division would be required unde mathematical principles.

 

The ambiguity arises when people like yourself decide to take the (1+2) as isolated from the rest of the sum. The ambiguity is only there because you created it when you came to the conclusion that 9 was the answer.

[Das Root]

But what do mathematicians actually work out The folk that use mathematics in real life situations and use a notation so they all understand the workings is surely a better use of mathematics than someone messing about with figures for probably no reason whatsoever. Mathematics is there for us to understand the effects of gravity, heat and light, density and how things react in our atmosphere. Its not there for the purpose of moving numbers around to come up with an answer. If we counted to 60 instead of 100 then most of the problems would be easier to resolve

 

[I P Knightley]

Oh dear, I do believe if someone had bothered to read the full post it would have meant them not making a fool of themselves

 

As I said, having encountered your embarrassing howler, I judged that the remainder of your post would not have been worth reading.

[P-Dizzle]

I'll keep fighting the Good Fight, three dog out.

 

[Das Root]

I take it you didn't actually read my post?

 

To get the answer 9, you would need to isolate (3) from the two. But that is already accounted for under implied multiplication. Before you would divide, you would read 2(3) as 6, and you would not be able to detach (3) from the 2 and multiply it after division to give you the answer 9.

 

How is that so hard to comprehend? I've been explaining it in the most simple of terms, I really don't understand how you cannot see that 2(3) is a single entity and makes 6 before any division would be required unde mathematical principles.

 

The ambiguity arises when people like yourself decide to take the (1+2) as isolated from the rest of the sum. The ambiguity is only there because you created it when you came to the conclusion that 9 was the answer.

 

 

No, as there is no ambiguity, the 8 page thread arises from folks like you who don't understand the basics. Brackets, Exponents, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction (for the simplest explanation). That's the very easy to understand rule. Apply it to the equation yourself, what answer do you get? If you don't like it, show me somebody who knows what they are talking about agreeing with you that the answer is 1. Honestly "isolated from the rest of the sum"? It's not isolated, it's weighted value within the equation is lesser to that of the division calculation, ergo 6 divided by 2 comes before you multiply that part of the answer by the primary of 2 + 1. The multiplication is weighted 3 in this equation, not 2 as you would prefer. If you want however to rewrite the rules, feel free.

[Das Root]

As I said, having encountered your embarrassing howler, I judged that the remainder of your post would not have been worth reading.

 

 

Tee hee...loser

 

 

Ooh and note I switched to Exponents to keep you happy

[P-Dizzle]

No, as there is no ambiguity, the 8 page thread arises from folks like you who don't understand the basics. Brackets, Exponents, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction (for the simplest explanation). That's the very easy to understand rule. Apply it to the equation yourself, what answer do you get? If you don't like it, show me somebody who knows what they are talking about agreeing with you that the answer is 1. Honestly "isolated from the rest of the sum"? It's not isolated, it's weighted value within the equation is lesser to that of the division calculation, ergo 6 divided by 2 comes before you multiply that part of the answer by the primary of 2 + 1. The multiplication is weighted 3 in this equation, not 2 as you would prefer. If you want however to rewrite the rules, feel free.

 

2(1+2) requires no multiplication because it is already implied. Really, how can you not get that?

[southside1874]

 

You're the one who is saying 9 mate and then you ask me what I'm on about

 

Poundland are selling electric oars stuck on reverse. I'll get you a set for your birthday

[southside1874]

2(1+2) requires no multiplication because it is already implied. Really, how can you not get that?

 

 

So how the hell can I divide this by 6 then smarty pants

[Das Root]

2(1+2) requires no multiplication because it is already implied. Really, how can you not get that?

 

 

It's already implied? So you can just bash on with doing it whatever way you want then? Show me proof that the method I have already told you about many times is incorrect then. Prove it's 1, don't just say it's 1...question to answer with no workings? Wouldn't get you the full marks in any maths exam dear boy

[Das Root]

So how the hell can I divide this by 6 then smarty pants

 

 

If your position is the answer is 1, you do realise you are arguing with your own side

[P-Dizzle]

What on earth has that go to do with things? Yes it's a multiplication, but no you don't do it before the division. Jeezo, what do they teach in schools these days

 

That's why it's implied, you take it as given, therefore there is no need to take it into account after you divide. This is no different from what you were taught, by the way.

[weegranty]

I think the answer is 1.

[Das Root]

That's why it's implied, you take it as given, therefore there is no need to take it into account after you divide. This is no different from what you were taught, by the way.

 

 

I take it you do understand there are fundamental rules to working out simple equations? Why are you pushing them aside to suit your argument?

 

As it looks like you missed my edit...

 

Show me proof that the method I have already told you about many times is incorrect then. Prove it's 1, don't just say it's 1...question to answer with no workings? Wouldn't get you the full marks in any maths exam dear boy

[Budgie.]

The calculators, websites and spreadsheets say nine because you've put the data in incorrectly. How do you not understand this?

 

The data was input exactly as shown in the original post in this thread.

 

The answer was 9.

 

No extra brackets added, no fraction bars added. (due to the fact they aren't part of this sum)

 

The plain and simple fact is that the answer to the OP's question is 9. That is undeniable and is proven by all neutral evidence.

 

The only way to make it 1 is to start adding extra things into the sum to get the answer you are looking for.

[P-Dizzle]

What rules have I pushed aside to get 1? The fact that 2(3) does not need to be multiplied is in no way contradicting any rules. You'd be better explaining why (3) can be taken as a separate entity.

[southside1874]

If your position is the answer is 1, you do realise you are arguing with your own side

 

I think my fellow numero uno can detect a bit of humour that obviously befalls the nine camp. Us one lovers obviously can afford the time for humour while the numpty niners still do their sums

[Tazio]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQIrxhNkiAs

[davemclaren]

I think my fellow numero uno can detect a bit of humour that obviously befalls the nine camp. Us one lovers obviously can afford the time for humour while the numpty niners still do their sums

 

 

Heck, I've been out, had 9 pints of IPA and this is still going on. Still don't see anything bar opinion from the one guys.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

Heck, I've been out, had 9 pints of IPA and this is still going on.

 

I bet you only had one pint.

[P-Dizzle]

The data was input exactly as shown in the original post in this thread.

 

The answer was 9.

 

No extra brackets added, no fraction bars added. (due to the fact they aren't part of this sum)

 

The plain and simple fact is that the answer to the OP's question is 9. That is undeniable and is proven by all neutral evidence.

 

The only way to make it 1 is to start adding extra things into the sum to get the answer you are looking for.

 

And that is why you get an incorrect answer. Seriously, how can you not see this? The question in the OP is deliberately ambiguous to give a wrong answer to simpletons that just punch numbers into a calculator and take it as gospel. You seem to be under the impression that a calculator's answer is infallible, that's only the case if your input is correct, yours has not been. Put 6/(2(1+2) in to your calculator and see what you get, every number has implied parentheses around it, the same applies to 2(1+2). You've been putting 6/2(1+2), which to the human mind that can differentiate between lines of an equation, is clear that the answer is one. You're reading it off a calculator that is incapable of processing the data correctly an that is why you get 9. This is what the entire argument boils down to, those that understand how to resolve parentheses correctly in sums and those that have an overreliance on calculators. I'll reiterate the point, you do not understand the problem here, that is why you take 6/2(1+2) as acceptable input into a calculator, and that is where your argument fails. Do you understand?

[Budgie.]

I think my fellow numero uno can detect a bit of humour that obviously befalls the nine camp. Us one lovers obviously can afford the time for humour while the numpty niners still do their sums

 

I can afford the time to head off into Edinburgh for a few drinks and a Derren Brown show and still be correct.

 

While others have spent their whole Friday night disputing the accurracy of calculators, websites and maths professors and are still wrong. Oh to be 19 again!

 

[davemclaren]

I bet you only had one pint.

 

 

OK, I had 6.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

OK, I had 6.

 

 

Rounding error

[southside1874]

The data was input exactly as shown in the original post in this thread.

 

The answer was 9.

 

No extra brackets added, no fraction bars added. (due to the fact they aren't part of this sum)

 

The plain and simple fact is that the answer to the OP's question is 9. That is undeniable and is proven by all neutral evidence.

 

The only way to make it 1 is to start adding extra things into the sum to get the answer you are looking for.

 

The calculators and spread sheets work with the simplest forms of arithmetic and look at the job in simplest terms. A spreadsheet adds and multiplies columns and rows but doesnt understand the basics of science or mathematics. If they did then they would only count to 60. As the world is a sphere and the multiples of a sphere is in units of 60 then why do we have to try and resolve any problems the world puts to us by using 100. We always use correction factors like we did when our units of measurement was feet and yards. Why do we use mathematics?

[davemclaren]

Rounding error

 

Inversion...and a black pudding supper.

[Das Root]

What rules have I pushed aside to get 1? The fact that 2(3) does not need to be multiplied is in no way contradicting any rules. You'd be better explaining why (3) can be taken as a separate entity.

 

I have explained this fully in a previous post. However, look up BODMAS or BEDMAS as others on here prefer to call it. You could even call it BIDMAS...though the only relevance in this calculation is BDMAS.

 

If 2(3) doesn't need to be multiplied though, how do you get 1? How do you get ANY answer for that matter? You would end up with 6/2(3). To conclude the calculation you need to complete the multiplication. Maybe you mean you do not need to write "x" or "*"? That would be correct.

 

You are actually failing to realise what is being implied that would make your argument have any possibility of working. What you could argue that what is being implied is (and this is wrong btw) a secondary set of brackets AFTER the division and containing everything that follows. Hence...

 

6 / (2(2 + 1))

 

Which would indeed equal 1. That is what you should be trying to argue is being implied, the imaginary set of brackets contained around anything beyond the division sign. But you aren't, and that's good as it would be wrong. Still though, I have argued your case better than you...so really I have zero chance of losing this one eh?

[Budgie.]

And that is why you get an incorrect answer. Seriously, how can you not see this? The question in the OP is deliberately ambiguous to give a wrong answer to simpletons that just punch numbers into a calculator and take it as gospel. You seem to be under the impression that a calculator's answer is infallible, that's only the case if your input is correct, yours has not been. Put 6/(2(1+2) in to your calculator and see what you get, every number has implied parentheses around it, the same applies to 2(1+2). You've been putting 6/2(1+2), which to the human mind that can differentiate between lines of an equation, is clear that the answer is one. You're reading it off a calculator that is incapable of processing the data correctly an that is why you get 9. This is what the entire argument boils down to, those that understand how to resolve parentheses correctly in sums and those that have an overreliance on calculators. I'll reiterate the point, you do not understand the problem here, that is why you take 6/2(1+2) as acceptable input into a calculator, and that is where your argument fails. Do you understand?

 

There's no reliance on calculators.

 

I calculated it as 9 in my head.

 

Calculators, excel, websites and maths professors are the backup evidence.

 

You keep repeating the phrase "can you not see this?" over and over.

 

The answer is no because there is nothing to see. The rules of mathematics are clearly set out. They are explained in textbooks, websites and by teachers, tutors and professors. When followed these give the answer 9.

 

There is nothing to support your claim that it is 1 apart from your own insistence. No actual evidence of the mathematical 'rules' you are suggesting. You'd think if there was a grain of truth in what you're saying then it would be somewhere on the internet surely.

 

Your argument consists of repeating your opinion over and over, insisting that we're 'typing it in wrongly' and that calculators, websites, excel and the maths professor are all wrong. "Can't you see that?"

[southside1874]

Heck, I've been out, had 9 pints of IPA and this is still going on. Still don't see anything bar opinion from the one guys.

I'm a straight guy who likes straight lines and one is about as straight as you get. You niners have an air of the Richie Towells about you. You like a wee curve with a perfectly formed hoop instead of taking the straight route

If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join the nines...............thats all

[Dean Winchester]

Asked a Mathematics Professor in my department this afternoon. He said the answer was 9. Good enough for me

[P-Dizzle]

I have explained this fully in a previous post. However, look up BODMAS or BEDMAS as others on here prefer to call it. You could even call it BIDMAS...though the only relevance in this calculation is BDMAS.

 

If 2(3) doesn't need to be multiplied though, how do you get 1? How do you get ANY answer for that matter? You would end up with 6/2(3). To conclude the calculation you need to complete the multiplication. Maybe you mean you do not need to write "x" or "*"? That would be correct.

 

You are actually failing to realise what is being implied that would make your argument have any possibility of working. What you could argue that what is being implied is (and this is wrong btw) a secondary set of brackets AFTER the division and containing everything that follows. Hence...

 

6 / (2(2 + 1))

 

Which would indeed equal 1. That is what you should be trying to argue is being implied, the imaginary set of brackets contained around anything beyond the division sign. But you aren't, and that's good as it would be wrong. Still though, I have argued your case better than you...so really I have zero chance of losing this one eh?

 

 

You really haven't.

 

6/2(1+2) is what we're being told to look at, 2(1+2) is to be taken as 6 under all possible logic. So essentially we've got 6/6, if it's written as 6/2(3) it makes little difference, it's still dividing 6 by whatever is on the other side of the sum, it doesn't matter if it's written as 6 or 2(3) you can take it as given that it is to be read 6.

 

That doesn't fly in the face of BODMAS, BIDMAS, BEDMAS, PISMAD, UMAD or whatever acronym you want to use. It takes a far bigger leap to remove (3) from the 2 and somehow times it after division has taken place, you are assuming something that is not to be assumed, but taken as granted.

[southside1874]

The nines are obviously Hibs fans

[southside1874]

You really haven't.

 

6/2(1+2) is what we're being told to look at, 2(1+2) is to be taken as 6 under all possible logic. So essentially we've got 6/6, if it's written as 6/2(3) it makes little difference, it's still dividing 6 by whatever is on the other side of the sum, it doesn't matter if it's written as 6 or 2(3) you can take it as given that it is to be read 6.

 

That doesn't fly in the face of BODMAS, BIDMAS, BEDMAS, PISMAD, UMAD or whatever acronym you want to use. It takes a far bigger leap to remove (3) from the 2 and somehow times it after division has taken place, you are assuming something that is not to be assumed, but taken as granted.

You obviously think in a logical manner and I can presume you are not a girl or a Hibby

[Budgie.]

Asked a Mathematics Professor in my department this afternoon. He said the answer was 9. Good enough for me

 

He was inputing the figures wrongly though so that doesn't count! Can't you see that!

[davemclaren]

You obviously think in a logical manner and I can presume you are not a girl or a Hibby

 

Man love if I'm not mistaken.

[P-Dizzle]

There's no reliance on calculators.

 

I calculated it as 9 in my head.

 

Calculators, excel, websites and maths professors are the backup evidence.

 

You keep repeating the phrase "can you not see this?" over and over.

 

The answer is no because there is nothing to see. The rules of mathematics are clearly set out. They are explained in textbooks, websites and by teachers, tutors and professors. When followed these give the answer 9.

 

There is nothing to support your claim that it is 1 apart from your own insistence. No actual evidence of the mathematical 'rules' you are suggesting. You'd think if there was a grain of truth in what you're saying then it would be somewhere on the internet surely.

 

Your argument consists of repeating your opinion over and over, insisting that we're 'typing it in wrongly' and that calculators, websites, excel and the maths professor are all wrong. "Can't you see that?"

 

 

It really isn't. The problem here is your inability to use a calculator.

 

We can and have all agreed that parentheses are implied around all numbers. So put this into your calculator -

 

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

 

That is exactly how it is laid out in the OP, but including the implied parentheses. What do you get?

 

Your argument is based on "I looked at it and got 9" and an unverified claim from an alleged professor, then your incorrect data input into a calculator.

[Smack]

I went to the bar and bought 6 pints. My two mates were there and they both had the Mrs with them. My Mrs was at the table as well and although she would never sink so low as to drink beer, on this occasion I got us both a pint. Everyone got one pint of Belhaven Best (pishwater that it is)

 

or

 

I bought 6 pints. It was only me and my mate. He got 3 and I got 3. He is a lightweight though so he wanted off the rounds. He got 1 for himself and 2 for me the next time. In total 9 pints were bought and paid for.

 

I think I've expressed that properly in a real life situation, so I can't see the case for multiplying the 3 pints we both got in the first round by the 3 additional pints we bought.

 

Maybe, the way the sum is written, and as several people have pointed out, it is deliberately ambiguous. It could be asking how many pints each person got within a group of 6, or it could refer to the total number of drinks consumed by two people out on the lash.

 

It just goes to show the complex mathematics involved when you start buying drinks for other people.

[davemclaren]

It really isn't. The problem here is your inability to use a calculator.

 

We can and have all agreed that parentheses are implied around all numbers. So put this into your calculator -

 

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

 

That is exactly how it is laid out in the OP, but including the implied parentheses. What do you get?

 

Your argument is based on "I looked at it and got 9" and an unverified claim from an alleged professor, then your incorrect data input into a calculator.

 

If it was exactly how it was laid out you wouldn't have to imply parentheses to get the anwwer you want. Stick to the explicit parentheses and the universally accepted order of operations.

 

Good night.

[Budgie.]

It really isn't. The problem here is your inability to use a calculator.

 

We can and have all agreed that parentheses are implied around all numbers. So put this into your calculator -

 

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

 

That is exactly how it is laid out in the OP, but including the implied parentheses. What do you get?

 

Your argument is based on "I looked at it and got 9" and an unverified claim from an alleged professor, then your incorrect data input into a calculator.

 

"implied"

 

I take it you're happy to dismiss HMFC Riley's maths professor as unverified aswell.

 

Also gotta love how all the "1"s have changed their argument as they have went along. Earlier in the thread it was the "fraction" argument (which the maths professor clarified as wrong) so they've now moved onto using "implied parentheses!"

 

God loves a tryer!

[southside1874]

Man love if I'm not mistaken.

 

Why would I have the impression that you could ever be mistaken

[Budgie.]

If it was exactly how it was laid out you wouldn't have to imply parnetheses to get the anwwer you want. Stick to the explicit parentheses and the universally accepted order of operations.

 

Good night.

 

This.

[davemclaren]

Why would I have the impression that you could ever be mistaken

 

No idea to be honest.

[P-Dizzle]

If it was exactly how it was laid out you wouldn't have to imply parnetheses to get the anwwer you want. Stick to the explicit parentheses and the universally accepted order of operations.

 

Good night.

 

 

Are you serious? I'm using that to point out where he has gone wrong when using a calculator to get his answer.

 

Implied parentheses are there wheter I denote them or not. You divide what is on the top by what is on the bottom and that is that. You take 2(3) as already worked out as 6 because it is implied by the nature of 2(3). 6/6 = 1

 

Good night.

[southside1874]

"implied"

 

I take it you're happy to dismiss HMFC Riley's maths professor as unverified aswell.

 

Also gotta love how all the "1"s have changed their argument as they have went along. Earlier in the thread it was the "fraction" argument (which the maths professor clarified as wrong) so they've now moved onto using "implied parentheses!"

 

God loves a tryer!

 

This is all getting sectarian. The one sect have nothing against the 9s opinions but can't agree with their thought. I still await an answer to the question that what do mathematicians actually do but confuse folk???

[Budgie.]

From urbandictionary.com...

 

"Implied Parenthesis:

 

A term consistantly used by stubborn mathematically challenged morons who don't even know the order of operations.

 

Typically used as a defense when such people fail to answer a multi-part equation, and don't feel like admitting their mistake.

 

When a person uses this term they are basically saying that there should have been brackets surrounding certain parts of a math equation."

 

:rofl: :rofl:

[P-Dizzle]

"implied"

 

I take it you're happy to dismiss HMFC Riley's maths professor as unverified aswell.

 

Also gotta love how all the "1"s have changed their argument as they have went along. Earlier in the thread it was the "fraction" argument (which the maths professor clarified as wrong) so they've now moved onto using "implied parentheses!"

 

God loves a tryer!

 

Sure I am. Even if it was verified, it wouldn't change anything. This really doesn't require an understanding of mathematics to that level to work this out.

 

Not one of us has changed our argument, we've merely adapted our answers to fit your ever expanding tautology. Implied parentheses have always been in the equation, I only brought them up in the hope that you would recognise your error. I should've known better because if pervious threads have taught me anything, it's that you are impervious to reason (as admitted by yourself when you openly stated that no amount of evidence would convince you that physic mediums and ghosts were not real).

 

Like I said, even people on your side must concede that implied parentheses exist, and not using them correctly is why you end up with 9 because you cannot use a calculator.

 

Out of interest, what textbooks back up your answer?

[Smack]

From urbandictionary.com...

 

"Implied Parenthesis:

 

A term consistantly used by stubborn mathematically challenged morons who don't even know the order of operations.

 

Typically used as a defense when such people fail to answer a multi-part equation, and don't feel like admitting their mistake.

 

When a person uses this term they are basically saying that there should have been brackets surrounding certain parts of a math equation."

 

:rofl: :rofl:

 

What do you think of my real life scenario? I poured my heart and soul into it and would genuinely be interested as to what you think. Scroll up a bit and you'll find it. I should show my colours and state that I think it's 1

[southside1874]

I went to the bar and bought 6 pints. My two mates were there and they both had the Mrs with them. My Mrs was at the table as well and although she would never sink so low as to drink beer, on this occasion I got us both a pint. Everyone got one pint of Belhaven Best (pishwater that it is)

 

or

 

I bought 6 pints. It was only me and my mate. He got 3 and I got 3. He is a lightweight though so he wanted off the rounds. He got 1 for himself and 2 for me the next time. In total 9 pints were bought and paid for.

 

I think I've expressed that properly in a real life situation, so I can't see the case for multiplying the 3 pints we both got in the first round by the 3 additional pints we bought.

 

Maybe, the way the sum is written, and as several people have pointed out, it is deliberately ambiguous. It could be asking how many pints each person got within a group of 6, or it could refer to the total number of drinks consumed by two people out on the lash.

 

It just goes to show the complex mathematics involved when you start buying drinks for other people.

You just about "sum" it up. If you have 1 guy and two females (1+2) and they all get 2 drinks each 2(1+2) and another 3 folk come to join them to drink the drinks. Then how much drink does everyone consume, assuming they all consume an equal amount. 6/2(2+1). If they all got 9 drinks each then I'm pisssssssed

[Budgie.]

 

 

Like I said, even people on your side must concede that implied parentheses exist.

 

see post #346