re: Spinoff: X=6/2(2+1)

6 3
_ _
2 1



That becomes 6 over 2 X 6 over 2

36/4 = 9

quote:

---

There is NOTHING that states you must do the division in the equation before distributing that A across the argument in the parenthesis except left to right. That's how people come up with 1. You state that you need to show the parenthesis around the entire denominator to do that operation first. I'm saying that you have to put the parenthesis around (6/2)to do that operation first. You are only doing that operation first because you are reading left to right. That is not enough to define the order of operations.

---

What? When there are two operations at the same level of the hierarchy, you work left to right. That's not an assumption; that is how math is solved.

There are 3 levels to PEMDAS.
Level 1 = Parentheses and Exponents
Level 2 = Multiply and Divide
Level 3 = Add and Subtract

X=6/2(1+2)
X=6/2(3) (At this point, Multiplication and division are at the same level. So it's which ever one comes first while going left to right.)
X=3(3)
X=9

quote:

---

hat's the point, it is not written in a way that the says one way or the other.

---

YES THE frick IT IS

quote:

---

Then you go with the method that requires the fewest assumptions

---

Exactly.
That's why you have assumptions, for when something is not written clearly enough to completely define it. And one of those assumptions/methods is Left to Right

(*Note: that / in between assumptions and methods is meant to be a slash, not a division sign)

*Another note: The parentheses around the first note don't mean you have to read the note first.

Third note: You don't have to multiply the notes by anything, those are just asteriskseses.

quote:

---

This is not really true. Again, it's not like reading a sentence. You really need to put the parenthesis in there to show what to do first.

---

It is like reading a sentence, unless there is an operation that must be solved first; you don't need parantheses to indicate that it should be solved left to right. If I wrote 3-2+1, I would always solve 3-2 first. I don't have to put (3-2)+1 because the parantheses are redundant. BUT if I wanted 2+1 solved first, I would have to use parantheses, 3-(2+1).

quote:

---

It wouldn't be such an argument if it was that clean cut. Obviously there are videos showing why people solve it both ways.

---

Because there is a reasonable explanation for a method, doesn't mean that it is the equivalent to the other method. And the alternative explanation doesn't imply that the rules are debatable. In other words, math is done left to right, within the hierarchy of operations; arguing ambiguity in that statement would be the wrong explanation.

The way the problem is written out is what confuses people. Obviously.

Just think of it as two fractions. But that math may be too advanced for some of the OT.

Holy crap... 9 pages? How is this even debatable?

People are actually arguing the answer is 1?