Is there a definitive answer to this?

Is there a definitive answer to this?

Other urls found in this thread:

wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6÷2(1+2)
encrypted.google.com/#q=6/2(1+2)
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>However, in some of the academic literature, multiplication denoted by juxtaposition (also known as implied multiplication) is interpreted as having higher precedence than division, so that 1/2x equals 1/(2x), not (1/2)x. For example, the manuscript submission instructions for the Physical Review journals state that multiplication is of higher precedence than division with a slash,[9] and this is also the convention observed in prominent physics textbooks such as the Course of Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshitz and the Feynman Lectures on Physics.[nb 1]

1

You evidently know that some people take different conventions on order of operations here since you're asking this - so why not just write things in an unambiguous way?

shit notation is the answer
6/(2*(1+2)) = 6/(2*(3)) = 6/6 = 1

The definitive answer is that you have no idea how languages work and should stop posting until you do.

Let's go with WolframAlpha's answer. wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6÷2(1+2)

The fact that I can conceive of and apply different orders of operations to arithmetic, no there is no definite answer.

I would have to consult the person positing the question regarding their intended meaning of the symbols and the order they are arranged before coming to an answer that we can agree to be satisfactory.

6/2(3)
=6/6
=1

yes , the answer is don't be stupid and use enought parentesis to express what you want .

I think godel showed that this is formally undecidable

7

This. The assertion that [math]6 \div 2 (1+2) = 1 [/math] is essentially a large cardinal hypothesis, like the existence of [math]0^\#[/math], though still compatible with V=L.

Is BIDMAS not a formal thing?

BIDMAS appears to be what wolframalpha uses. Division before multiplication.

My calculator says its 9

Yes, 6/2*(1+2)=9
no matter how you obfuscate it

Unambiguous notation is a formal thing - arguing about order of operations is like arguing about semantics.

encrypted.google.com/#q=6/2(1+2)

12

-1/12

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

It's 9
6 / 2 (1+2)
6 / 2 (3)
6 / 2 * 3
3 * 3 = 9

That is not proper mathematical notation, so no.

I can never tell if people are trolling in these threads or people here are really this ignorant and don't know the order of operations learned from grade school. You are not smarter than a fifth grader.

"6 ÷ 2 (1 + 2)" can be interpreted as ether "6 ÷ (2 (1 + 2))" or "(6 ÷ 2)(1 + 2)" so no There is no definitive answer.

Take your pedophile cartoons back to .

>"6 ÷ 2 (1 + 2)" can be interpreted as ether "6 ÷ (2 (1 + 2))" or "(6 ÷ 2)(1 + 2)"

No, it can't. Educate yourself.

Reading a dictionary may be a wise use of your time. Sometimes words have more than one definition. And that's something I hope you'd be able to learn.

Wrong. You do the multiplication left to right.

The correct answer is 9.

6/(2+4) = 6/6 = 1

(2+4) = 2(1+2)

6/2(1+2) = 1

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

>6/2(1+2)

6 / 2 * (3)
Left to right
3 * 3 = 9