Welcome to one of the easiest algebraic equations in the world!... or is it? MUAHAHAHAHA!
Can you solve this pesky little problem while also giving damning evidence that the other 2 can not possibly work?
YOU MUST CHOOSE ONE AND ONLY ONE!
Calculations:
6÷2(1+2) =
6÷2(3) =
3*3 = 9
6÷2(1+2) =
6÷2(3) =
6÷6 = 1
6÷2(1+2) =
6÷2+4 =
3+4 = 7
ADDED: Those calculations are simply thought processes for each possible answer. I am aware that there may or may not be something missing that could help clarify, but I am leaving it up to you to figure it out.
Last edited by Vihzel; April 28th, 2011 at 05:17 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vihzel For This Useful Post:
Device(s): Nexus 4, Galaxy S II,
Captivate,
Nexus 1 (retired),
Nook Color,
Asus Transformer.
Carrier: AT&T
Thanks: 5,964
Thanked 10,080 Times in 5,557 Posts
Ahh, wonderful trick question. I haven't seen this since my days as a janitor for the CIA ... ladies rooms only (hey, government jobs have their perks.)
It a basic binary cipher where integers represent 1's and symbols 0's so:
Brackets are clear enough. The more interesting part is this:
6
--- * 3 = 9
2
or
6
--- = 1
2*3
Depends how you look at it...
The problem is more clearly written like this: (6/2) * (1+2), in which the answer is 9.
We were always taught to write using parenthesis/brackets when in question, so as to be clear about our intention, and to circumvent confusion.
In order for it to be 1, people would have to add their own set of parenthesis/brackets, which wouldn't follow the problem, as written. It's not written as: 6/[2*(1+2)], for example.
Last edited by krouget; April 28th, 2011 at 10:26 AM.
Device(s): Droid X1, Droid 1, RAZR, Rezound, Maxx HD
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 4,133
Thanked 353 Times in 273 Posts
its 1
In school many years ago they taught us PEMDAS or Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally if that helped ppl remember it easier. They still do this today, my kids school anyway.
Ahhh I was in so big of a rush I see Bob Maxey aleady bought up PEMDAS. It pays to read threads from the beginning to end and not skip...lol
I see one thing...there are some different schools of thought in here...lol I'm sticking with 1.
Now I'm curious: I see BODMAS could be interpreted division first than multiplication. How can one use both PEMDAS and BODMAS and get the same answer?
And doing some reading I guess I should say they taught us PEMDAS in the U.S.
__________________
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
MLK, Jr.
Last edited by jroc; April 28th, 2011 at 01:07 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to jroc For This Useful Post:
I say 9 as well. With PEMDAS, it's what's inside the parenthesis. As others have said, when the one number is in the parenthesis and the other is outside, it can simply be rewritten with a multiplication symbole.
2(3) = 2 * 3, and once you rewrite it that way, PEMDAS takes over and you divide 6/2 first then multiply by 3.
Also just punched it into my TI-83 and got 9. I trust that thing with my life...well at least when it comes to math.
Device(s): Nexus 7, Galaxy Nexus, LG Ally, Droid X
Carrier: Verizon
Thanks: 84
Thanked 38 Times in 35 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usta
Brackets are clear enough. The more interesting part is this:
6
--- * 3 = 9
2
or
6
--- = 1
2*3
Depends how you look at it...
Order of operations (PEMDAS) states that multiplication and division is done left to right in the same step... as is addition and subtraction.. answer is 9.
Device(s): Nexus 7, Galaxy Nexus, LG Ally, Droid X
Carrier: Verizon
Thanks: 84
Thanked 38 Times in 35 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParishL31
I say 9 as well. With PEMDAS, it's what's inside the parenthesis. As others have said, when the one number is in the parenthesis and the other is outside, it can simply be rewritten with a multiplication symbole.
2(3) = 2 * 3, and once you rewrite it that way, PEMDAS takes over and you divide 6/2 first then multiply by 3.
Also just punched it into my TI-83 and got 9. I trust that thing with my life...well at least when it comes to math.
Also hate to burst your bubble but unless you dictate the order of operations into the equation when it is entered into a ti-83/84, the calculator will NOT follow order of operations.
Device(s): Droid X1, Droid 1, RAZR, Rezound, Maxx HD
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 4,133
Thanked 353 Times in 273 Posts
^lol!!
The parentheses is the key. Thats why I think its 1. Now that I think about it, I see how using BODMAS gives the same answer of 1. You work with the parentheses until you cant anymore.
Now I see how dan330 could use BODMAS and still get 1. And 2(3) is 2 times 3, thats what I was taught. Solving that still working with the parentheses makes that 6. Then its 6÷6.
The reason why the other 2 answers wont work is you have to do everything inside the parentheses first then go from there. That cancels the answer being 7 out off the break.
And the only way for the answer to be 9 is if you go out of order.
What do I win?
Last edited by jroc; April 28th, 2011 at 03:17 PM.
Rules say the answer is 9, but some older compilers would evaluate that as 1.
Which also happens to be the next number in the sequence, 1,1,1,2,1,... or 1,1,2,1,3,1,4,1,...
Unless there's no rhythm to this riddle.
Think not of math, young grasshopper; but those things that interest Mr. Bilbie. Not integer sequences real math folks consider sequences. No Corn Flake numbers, and forget Mr. Fibonacci. You might consider obvious sequences of common events in your daily life.
Stop using Google, too! Dag Nabbit. much of the above stuff is what some call a distraction.
Remember, you cannot just give the numbers arriving next, but explain your answer. Just like in school.
Though people are usually taught that putting a number next to parentheses means multiply, what it actually means is the number is a FUNCTION OF what's in the parentheses... meaning that in the above scenario, two is a function of 1+2, meaning you apply the 2 to what's in the parentheses (1+2, or 3) giving you 6.
Meaning it's 6/6 = 1.
You can't really say it's (6/3) * (1+2), because that's extrapolating parentheses to indicate multiplication, when they really don't-- it's just an easier way of thinking of it (which in this case is inaccurate). That's why using PEMDAS or what have you doesn't work here, because there's no "M".
edit: to be a little more clear, let's say you have the function 6/f(x). Looking at it like that, most of you would probably agree that you can't separate f from x. Well, if f=2 and x=3, you STILL can't separate f from x, even if we've assigned it a constant.
No crackers or soup for you. Also, tell us what the string represents.
CLUE: Think finite sets.
CLUE: Forget about math, has nothing to do with it. Think number substitution and review Furnelli Rialto's famous 1946 MIT paper on Differential set number mutational differentiational strings within infinite negative number sets.
Google it.
CLUE: Since I am thinking of a finite set, your string will fail if allowed to continue. So here is part of the sequence: 10 1 11 1 12 1 1 1
God, what a seriously challenged group (Smiley, ducking, smiley)
Though people are usually taught that putting a number next to parentheses means multiply, what it actually means is the number is a FUNCTION OF what's in the parentheses... meaning that in the above scenario, two is a function of 1+2, meaning you apply the 2 to what's in the parentheses (1+2, or 3) giving you 6.
Meaning it's 6/6 = 1.
You can't really say it's (6/3) * (1+2), because that's extrapolating parentheses to indicate multiplication, when they really don't-- it's just an easier way of thinking of it (which in this case is inaccurate). That's why using PEMDAS or what have you doesn't work here, because there's no "M".
edit: to be a little more clear, let's say you have the function 6/f(x). Looking at it like that, most of you would probably agree that you can't separate f from x. Well, if f=2 and x=3, you STILL can't separate f from x, even if we've assigned it a constant.
Disagree.
By saying that f(x)=2*x, you've said that implied parens that didn't exist in the originally malformed expression are in effect. In other words, you've re-expressed the problem as:
6/(2(1+2))
Malformed expressions can only be evaluated on their face.
Think not of math, young grasshopper; but those things that interest Mr. Bilbie. Not integer sequences real math folks consider sequences. No Corn Flake numbers, and forget Mr. Fibonacci. You might consider obvious sequences of common events in your daily life.
Stop using Google, too! Dag Nabbit. much of the above stuff is what some call a distraction.
Remember, you cannot just give the numbers arriving next, but explain your answer. Just like in school.
Smiley
Bob
I thought not of math, didn't use google, and did explain my answer - rhythm; evidently not so far from your own Mr. Bilbie.
By saying that f(x)=2*x, you've said that implied parens that didn't exist in the originally malformed expression are in effect. In other words, you've re-expressed the problem as:
6/(2(1+2))
Malformed expressions can only be evaluated on their face.
Well I disagree with your disagreement! So there!
edit: to explain myself a little better, no, i'm not saying f(x) = 2*x. In fact, I'm saying that's the problem-- OTHER people are saying that, but it's not true. f(x) is a function, that is f of x (f is a function of x), meaning the variable f is applied to the variable x. In our equation, we would apply 2 to 3, which in effect is multiplying it... but it's not the same as saying f(x) = f*x (though isolated, those equations are redundant). The problem is that USUALLY creating a function simply means multiplying it, so we've been trained to think that 2(3) = 2*3. But it isn't.
Last edited by sonofaresiii; April 28th, 2011 at 06:26 PM.
I knew this thread would attract a fair amount of attention. I do have the answer... or perhaps I only have the answer that I believe to be true...
What I suspected would happen in this thread has happened on Facebook and on the physics forum where 34 people voted for one number and 36 voted for the other. Very fascinating stuff!
I knew this thread would attract a fair amount of attention. I do have the answer... or perhaps I only have the answer that I believe to be true...
What I suspected would happen in this thread has happened on Facebook and on the physics forum where 34 people voted for one number and 36 voted for the other. Very fascinating stuff!
I really, really hope it doesn't turn out I'm pulling this explanation out of my @ss
27Likes
6÷2(1+2) = ?
