Sorry...I keep doing the equation and the answer I get is BLUE.

If I change the variable by a factor of 2, I get PLATYPUS.

PurpleJedi said:

Sorry...I keep doing the equation and the answer I get is BLUE.

If I change the variable by a factor of 2, I get PLATYPUS.

imago said:

This is all too embarassing, yall. All too embarassing.

PEMDAS is the order of operation; howevver, multiplicaion and division are equal to each other, as addition and subtraction are equal to each other.

The reason is that division is just inverse multiplicationl (the fraction mentioned above), and that there really is no subtraction, because subtraction is just the addition of a negative integer. Ergo, when you have multiplaction and division, you simply work from left to right. Likewise, when you have addition and subjtraction, you work from left to right. The only answer possible is 9.

PEMDAS looks like this

GO LEFT TO RIGHT IN THIS ORDER: Parenthesis, exponents, [multiplcation & division], then [addition and subtraction].

Ergo, 9.

it doesn't matter if you represent a number as pi, 3.14... or 22/7 or 22÷7, you still need an order of operation when figuring the math.

For example, adding 1 to pi, would be 1 + 3.14... which you would arrive at 4.14... which is easy enough. But, for 22 ÷ 7 + 1, to arrive at 4, you need to follow the order of operation exactly.

Yall embarass me so much I'm going to stop posting indefinately until I've noticed your math improves over this year. Good day!

.

[Edited 12/31/12 17:23pm]

Hell, I don't know a PEMDAS from Ramdas, so I have no idea what you're talking about but somehow or other I got 9...

I just went... 6 divided by 2 is 3, then I went 1 plus 2 is 3, then 3 times 3 is 9. I guess I was doing it the way we learned it in the olden days...

I detest math and if you ever pull another stunt like this I swear I will smite you!

imago said:

This is all too embarassing, yall. All too embarassing.

PEMDAS is the order of operation; howevver, multiplicaion and division are equal to each other, as addition and subtraction are equal to each other.

The reason is that division is just inverse multiplicationl (the fraction mentioned above), and that there really is no subtraction, because subtraction is just the addition of a negative integer. Ergo, when you have multiplaction and division, you simply work from left to right. Likewise, when you have addition and subjtraction, you work from left to right. The only answer possible is 9.

PEMDAS looks like this

GO LEFT TO RIGHT IN THIS ORDER: Parenthesis, exponents, [multiplcation & division], then [addition and subtraction].

Ergo, 9.

[Edited 12/31/12 17:23pm]

ummm... yeah... said that here... do i get a gift or something?... chocolate is out as i'm eating healthy... how about a mango?... mangoes are cool

MoBetterBliss said:

PDogz said:

To explain how I arrived at my final answer:

6÷2(1+2) =

Following the Order of Operations: PEMDAS (Parenthsis, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction)

First thing to solve would be what's in the parenthesis: (1+2),

then what you're left with is: 6÷2(3) = or... 6÷2x3 =

Then, since there are no Exponents in the equation, the next in order is Multiplication: 2x3 (...which equals 6)

then what you're left with is: 6÷6 =

The next thing in the Order of Operations is Division: 6÷6

which equals 1

Since the equation contains no Addition or Substraction (the last two items in the Order of Operation), the equation is already solved: 6÷2(1+2) = 1

So, the answer is 1

you're wrong... here's why

the order of operations is PEMDAS (Parenthesis, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction)....but the order is

Parenthesis, then

Exponents, then

Multiplication and Division, then

Addition and Subtraction

so firstly you do the parenthesis... which gives

6÷2(1+2) = 6÷2x3

then, because multiplication and division are equal....you work left to right: 6÷2x3 = 3x3 = 9

the answer is 9

babynoz said:

imago said:

This is all too embarassing, yall. All too embarassing.

PEMDAS is the order of operation; howevver, multiplicaion and division are equal to each other, as addition and subtraction are equal to each other.

The reason is that division is just inverse multiplicationl (the fraction mentioned above), and that there really is no subtraction, because subtraction is just the addition of a negative integer. Ergo, when you have multiplaction and division, you simply work from left to right. Likewise, when you have addition and subjtraction, you work from left to right. The only answer possible is 9.

PEMDAS looks like this

GO LEFT TO RIGHT IN THIS ORDER: Parenthesis, exponents, [multiplcation & division], then [addition and subtraction].

Ergo, 9.

it doesn't matter if you represent a number as pi, 3.14... or 22/7 or 22÷7, you still need an order of operation when figuring the math.

For example, adding 1 to pi, would be 1 + 3.14... which you would arrive at 4.14... which is easy enough. But, for 22 ÷ 7 + 1, to arrive at 4, you need to follow the order of operation exactly.

Yall embarass me so much I'm going to stop posting indefinately until I've noticed your math improves over this year. Good day!

.

[Edited 12/31/12 17:23pm]

Hell, I don't know a PEMDAS from Ramdas, so I have no idea what you're talking about but somehow or other I got 9...

I just went... 6 divided by 2 is 3, then I went 1 plus 2 is 3, then 3 times 3 is 9. I guess I was doing it the way we learned it in the olden days...

I detest math and if you ever pull another stunt like this I swear I will smite you!

imago said:

babynoz said:

Hell, I don't know a PEMDAS from Ramdas, so I have no idea what you're talking about but somehow or other I got 9...

I just went... 6 divided by 2 is 3, then I went 1 plus 2 is 3, then 3 times 3 is 9. I guess I was doing it the way we learned it in the olden days...

I detest math and if you ever pull another stunt like this I swear I will smite you!

[img:$uid]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/delivertheword/misc/madea1kv8.png[/img:$uid]

imago said:

babynoz said:

Hell, I don't know a PEMDAS from Ramdas, so I have no idea what you're talking about but somehow or other I got 9...

I just went... 6 divided by 2 is 3, then I went 1 plus 2 is 3, then 3 times 3 is 9. I guess I was doing it the way we learned it in the olden days...

I detest math and if you ever pull another stunt like this I swear I will smite you!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

oh, i missed that pic so much

cborgman said:

imago said:

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

oh, i missed that pic so much

Oh...so YOU want summa this too? Don't make me come over there,

babynoz said:

cborgman said:

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

oh, i missed that pic so much

Oh...so YOU want summa this too? Don't make me come over there,

[img:$uid]http://snobsite.com/archives/joyce_parade.jpg[/img:$uid]

cborgman said:

babynoz said:

Oh...so YOU want summa this too? Don't make me come over there,

[img:$uid]http://snobsite.com/archives/joyce_parade.jpg[/img:$uid]

[img:$uid]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/delivertheword/misc/pryor.jpg[/img:$uid]

babynoz said:

cborgman said:

[img:$uid]http://snobsite.com/archives/joyce_parade.jpg[/img:$uid]

[img:$uid]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/delivertheword/misc/pryor.jpg[/img:$uid]

the wierd thing is i am kind of friends with one of his sons, richard jr, and i swear he makes that exact face sometimes.

cborgman said:

babynoz said:

[img:$uid]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/delivertheword/misc/pryor.jpg[/img:$uid]

the wierd thing is i am kind of friends with one of his sons, richard jr, and i swear he makes that exact face sometimes.

How old is his son? I've only seen his daughters.

babynoz said:

cborgman said:

the wierd thing is i am kind of friends with one of his sons, richard jr, and i swear he makes that exact face sometimes.

How old is his son? I've only seen his daughters.

probably about 50

lovely guy, and a great singer.

[img:$uid]http://x47.xanga.com/a34d1a02c403288001669/b60820972.jpg[/img:$uid]

cborgman said:

babynoz said:

How old is his son? I've only seen his daughters.

probably about 50

lovely guy, and a great singer.

[img:$uid]http://x47.xanga.com/a34d1a02c403288001669/b60820972.jpg[/img:$uid]

Wow! I can totally see Richard in him.

Does he have any recordings out?

He should try solving it Oppa Gangnam Style!

babynoz said:

cborgman said:

probably about 50

lovely guy, and a great singer.

[img:$uid]http://x47.xanga.com/a34d1a02c403288001669/b60820972.jpg[/img:$uid]

Wow! I can totally see Richard in him.

Does he have any recordings out?

no, but he has some live songs on youtube.

cborgman said:

babynoz said:

Wow! I can totally see Richard in him.

Does he have any recordings out?

no, but he has some live songs on youtube.

Link?

babynoz said:

cborgman said:

no, but he has some live songs on youtube.

Link?

http://www.youtube.com/wa...CtQXNIchHc

imago said:

Dave1992 said:

The only correct answer is that the calculation is ambiguous. That's why the ÷ sign isn't used in "proper" maths anymore, because it's simply impractical and ambiguous. You either use a fraction line or help yourself with another set of brackets.

So, there would be two possible answers to this calculation: 1 and 9.

Practically, however, this type of calculation should not exist. Arriving at a calculation like this would actually be considered a mistake, because ambiguous calculations do not exist in reality. If this is the shortened version of a much longer calculation, you are likely to have missed a set of brackets.

So, the only real conclusion is:

You are stupid.

Actually, they do.

There are several caculations (though this one is not one of them because it is not ambigious) in math in which there are two possible answers to the equation.

Ofcourse, I may be getting lost in semantics. Suffice it to say, there is only one possible answer to this equation given the rules to the order of operations, if they are learned properly and followed. Ergo, this equation is neither ambigious nor is the order of operations which one must follow to arrive at the answer. Failure to do so is not the fault of the question, but of the learner.

This message is for everyone on this thread: I want to quote Steve Jobs in something very poingant that he said to the CEO of Sony, RCA and several other prominent execs in the music industry during a private closed door meeting.

"You all have your heads up your asses."

GROUP. HUG.

This "work from left to right" bullshit is ancient! It has no logical reason.

Plus, it's a very far-fetched rule developed only to "solve" calculations like these, whereas these calculations shouldn't even exist. The only logical rule is that multiplications and divisions are coequal, so if you arrive at an equation like this, you are simply likely to have forgotten a set of brackets somewhere. Because, if you think one step back and imagine the different possibilities to arrive at such an equation, it becomes clear that it only depends on which set of brackets you choose to focus on (first), and only then, in the next step, this "solve from left to right" rule interferes. It's a given rule that has no logical, mathematical reason.

[Edited 1/1/13 5:22am]

cborgman said:

[img:$uid]http://snobsite.com/archives/joyce_parade.jpg[/img:$uid]

omg

So, the answer is the singing son of Richard on youtube?

Dave1992 said:

imago said:

Actually, they do.

There are several caculations (though this one is not one of them because it is not ambigious) in math in which there are two possible answers to the equation.

Ofcourse, I may be getting lost in semantics. Suffice it to say, there is only one possible answer to this equation given the rules to the order of operations, if they are learned properly and followed. Ergo, this equation is neither ambigious nor is the order of operations which one must follow to arrive at the answer. Failure to do so is not the fault of the question, but of the learner.

This message is for everyone on this thread: I want to quote Steve Jobs in something very poingant that he said to the CEO of Sony, RCA and several other prominent execs in the music industry during a private closed door meeting.

"You all have your heads up your asses."

GROUP. HUG.

This "work from left to right" bullshit is ancient! It has no logical reason.

Plus, it's a very far-fetched rule developed only to "solve" calculations like these, whereas these calculations shouldn't even exist. The only logical rule is that multiplications and divisions are coequal, so if you arrive at an equation like this, you are simply likely to have forgotten a set of brackets somewhere. Because, if you think one step back and imagine the different possibilities to arrive at such an equation, it becomes clear that it only depends on which set of brackets you choose to focus on (first), and only then, in the next step, this "solve from left to right" rule interferes. It's a given rule that has no logical, mathematical reason.

[Edited 1/1/13 5:22am]

The point isn't mathmatical at all, but that everyone caculating the plot/graph can arrive at the same answer using the order of operations.

It becomes more apparent when solving for x when x is representing a true linear quadratic equation. And yes, it is ancient, but it is a necessary construct to ensure we're all arrive at the same calculations.

Algebra's use isn't meant to solve all equations and mathmatical problems. It has limited use, which is why triganometry and calculus are used for other purposes.

I don't think of these equations as ultimate 'answers' to anything. Their usefullness lies in the purposes for which they are used. I used to think algebra was just pointless, until I realized that a java program I was working with at work was actually doing the same thing algebra was doing (the syntax was obviously different, but it was the same thing--using a variable and plotting trends, etc.)

I'm not that smart, but I do think these 'rules' are not arbitrary.

imago said:

Dave1992 said:

This "work from left to right" bullshit is ancient! It has no logical reason.

Plus, it's a very far-fetched rule developed only to "solve" calculations like these, whereas these calculations shouldn't even exist. The only logical rule is that multiplications and divisions are coequal, so if you arrive at an equation like this, you are simply likely to have forgotten a set of brackets somewhere. Because, if you think one step back and imagine the different possibilities to arrive at such an equation, it becomes clear that it only depends on which set of brackets you choose to focus on (first), and only then, in the next step, this "solve from left to right" rule interferes. It's a given rule that has no logical, mathematical reason.

[Edited 1/1/13 5:22am]

The point isn't mathmatical at all, but that everyone caculating the plot/graph can arrive at the same answer using the order of operations.

It becomes more apparent when solving for x when x is representing a true linear quadratic equation. And yes, it is ancient, but it is a necessary construct to ensure we're all arrive at the same calculations.

Algebra's use isn't meant to solve all equations and mathmatical problems. It has limited use, which is why triganometry and calculus are used for other purposes.

I don't think of these equations as ultimate 'answers' to anything. Their usefullness lies in the purposes for which they are used. I used to think algebra was just pointless, until I realized that a java program I was working with at work was actually doing the same thing algebra was doing (the syntax was obviously different, but it was the same thing--using a variable and plotting trends, etc.)

I'm not that smart, but I do think these 'rules' are not arbitrary.

Well, yes, of course, this rule's purpose is clear and can be helpful, but the point I was trying to make is that, in a practical world, it is impossible to arrive at exactly this equation without actively calculation in order to arrive at this equation and in order to be able to use the "left to right" rule. In reality, though, noone would practically arrive at this equation (which is, by the way, the only instance where the "left to right" rule would come handy; otherwise it's completely unnecessary) and no situation would require this kind of equation. There's usually another set of brackets, or, more often, a fraction line involved, in order to allow "free" calculation in the steps before arriving at this equation.

Dave1992 said:

imago said:

The point isn't mathmatical at all, but that everyone caculating the plot/graph can arrive at the same answer using the order of operations.

It becomes more apparent when solving for x when x is representing a true linear quadratic equation. And yes, it is ancient, but it is a necessary construct to ensure we're all arrive at the same calculations.

Algebra's use isn't meant to solve all equations and mathmatical problems. It has limited use, which is why triganometry and calculus are used for other purposes.

I don't think of these equations as ultimate 'answers' to anything. Their usefullness lies in the purposes for which they are used. I used to think algebra was just pointless, until I realized that a java program I was working with at work was actually doing the same thing algebra was doing (the syntax was obviously different, but it was the same thing--using a variable and plotting trends, etc.)

I'm not that smart, but I do think these 'rules' are not arbitrary.

Well, yes, of course, this rule's purpose is clear and can be helpful, but the point I was trying to make is that, in a practical world, it is impossible to arrive at exactly this equation without actively calculation in order to arrive at this equation and in order to be able to use the "left to right" rule. In reality, though, noone would practically arrive at this equation (which is, by the way, the only instance where the "left to right" rule would come handy; otherwise it's completely unnecessary) and no situation would require this kind of equation. There's usually another set of brackets, or, more often, a fraction line involved, in order to allow "free" calculation in the steps before arriving at this equation.

Actually the equatin isn't all that far fetched though.

Take an excell equation for example where I calculate grades like this:

Total possible participation points - (Number of days absent ( .02) /total number of days + 3 bonus points = participation points.

Even in excel when you do a A1 - (B1(.02))/C1 + 3 (where the letters are specific cells), you arrive at something similar to the above and the order of operations applies.

Actually real life formula in excel that I'm using right now to caculate 'participation' points with my conversation students:

=(ROUND((AVERAGE(C24:F24)/0.5),0))*0.5+V1

Obviously here Round and Average are calculations in and of themselves.

But as you can see, the order of operations is vital here. If we didn't have them, we'd be

in trouble. This is more complicated, becuase of the nesting in excel, but the order

of operations is definately there. The bonus points afforded in cell V1 for example

are added after all is said and done.

imago said:

Dave1992 said:

Well, yes, of course, this rule's purpose is clear and can be helpful, but the point I was trying to make is that, in a practical world, it is impossible to arrive at exactly this equation without actively calculation in order to arrive at this equation and in order to be able to use the "left to right" rule. In reality, though, noone would practically arrive at this equation (which is, by the way, the only instance where the "left to right" rule would come handy; otherwise it's completely unnecessary) and no situation would require this kind of equation. There's usually another set of brackets, or, more often, a fraction line involved, in order to allow "free" calculation in the steps before arriving at this equation.

Actually the equatin isn't all that far fetched though.

Take an excell equation for example where I calculate grades like this:

Total possible participation points - (Number of days absent ( .02) /total number of days + 3 bonus points = participation points.

Even in excel when you do a A1 - (B1(.02))/C1 + 3 (where the letters are specific cells), you arrive at something similar to the above and the order of operations applies.

I wonder what your students have to do for those bonus points, hm?!

dJJ said:

So, the answer is the singing son of Richard on youtube?

imago said:

NDRU said:

imago said:

And NDRU's math is the most embarassing of them all.

I can't take this anymore. ANYMORE.

GOOD.....BYE........

Hey I said "yeah!" I get how it works using pemdas or whatever, but since I got through calculus without ever learning about pemdas I am thinking that good clean math has parentheses for a reason and I'm taking Dave's side!! (Plus he's handsome) Grenade out!!! [Edited 1/1/13 9:06am]

whodknee said:

novabrkr said:

No, that would be:

6/2(a) + 6/2(b)

Which can be turned into:

3a + 3b

When you put the numbers back in there you get:

(3 x 1) + (3 x 2)

And further:

3+6

Which is:

9

There's no two ways about it.

What the original expression really says is:

6

(---) x (1+2)

2

The multiplier is 6/2, not 2. In other words, the multiplier is 3 presented as an unnecessary fraction and the fraction is expressed with a division symbol. That's just due to conventions that allow abbreviations in certain ways. In this case it doesn't add clarity, but the attempt is to deliberately confuse people. It's just computer math syntax presented in a way that no one would use in a math textbook.

[Edited 12/31/12 5:11am]

You missed my edit. I wasn't sure whether the parenthesis takes priority over the division. For argument's sake I assumed it did. Without a context to put it in you have to be familiar with these rules of mathematics. There's obviously a much clearer way to present this equation. Damn you Imago!

I didn't miss your edit (I seem to have left it out from the comment though). I just wanted to make sure people will understand that this equation isn't ambiguous and that using alternative techniques for solving it doesn't provide different results.

It's expressed in a deliberately misleading way, but it's not ambiguous. There's only one answer.