What's the right answer?

What's the right answer?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark#Digit_grouping
britannica.com/topic/distributive-law
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

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

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

6÷2(2+1)
6÷2( 3)
3( 3)
3x3
9

Left.

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

Right calculation does not compute

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

DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO agzegvdehbxetjvcdruhcd

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!

Ok m8

Now put in -3^2

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

Androshit aka Pajeetdroid is retarded as usual.

Nine.

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

Order of Operations, PEMDAS, brawh

multiplication and division are of equal precedence

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

33

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

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

>crapplecuck intelligence

> 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.

>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.

Wasn't aware of the left to right shit.

nein nein nein

*without specifying the order of operations.

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.

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

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

its ok user, i too hate math.

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

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.

kys yoursevles my men

1 because multiplication is stronger than division

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

>kys yourselves
Implying we're retarded.

Casio is always right.

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

1

are you an American?

Ah, ok.

>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)

...

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.

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

>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.

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.

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

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

mathS

>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.

Because ease of use.
>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.

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

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

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

The equation is written incorrectly.

no its 9. the casio is shit

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

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

No, 6/2*3 is still 9.

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

>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?

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

>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.

when you actually enter it this way it actually says 9

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

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

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

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

How did you solve the captcha?

>spaces don't separate numbers
Wtf dude

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

>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.

Which makes complete sense

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

you can represent brackets on a seven seg

>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.

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.

>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.

They don't actually. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark#Digit_grouping

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

Still that's a different case

>>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?

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

It definitely doesn't mean multiplication at least.

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

>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 *.

The formula isn't on a seven segment display.

>>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.

...

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

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.

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.

britannica.com/topic/distributive-law

Lol