1. Tablet future looks bright! Read more about: Alcatel Xess | Samsung Galaxy View
    New Forums: Alcatel Xess | Samsung Galaxy View
    Dismiss Notice


6รท2(1+2) = ?

  1. 9

    94 vote(s)
  2. 1

    77 vote(s)
  3. 7

    2 vote(s)

Last Updated:

  1. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    No soup for you!

    Clue #2: 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, . . . Next number and why. Do not think of it as a math problem; it is a sequence, so what is the next number and why?


  2. EarlyMon

    EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator

    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. ;)
  3. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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.


  4. sonofaresiii

    sonofaresiii Well-Known Member

    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.
  5. czechplastik

    czechplastik Well-Known Member

    1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 6, 1, 7, 1, 8...etc etc
  6. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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)

  7. EarlyMon

    EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator


    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:


    Malformed expressions can only be evaluated on their face.
  8. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    I hope 1 + 1 still equals 2, or I'll be sad.
    Xyro likes this.
  9. 330D

    330D From My Cold Dead Hands VIP Member

    Give a bunch of geeks some numbers....
  10. jroc

    jroc Well-Known Member

    lol@the last 2 posts...
  11. EarlyMon

    EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator

    I thought not of math, didn't use google, and did explain my answer - rhythm; evidently not so far from your own Mr. Bilbie.

    I simply got it wrong.
  12. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    I like Geeks. Not in squads, but individually.
  13. sonofaresiii

    sonofaresiii Well-Known Member

    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.
  14. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    when should I hand out the answer?

    CLUE: Horology, think Horology
  15. Vihzel

    Vihzel Destroying Balls Everyday VIP Member

    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!
  16. jroc

    jroc Well-Known Member

    ^See...u know what.....
  17. sonofaresiii

    sonofaresiii Well-Known Member

    I really, really hope it doesn't turn out I'm pulling this explanation out of my @ss
  18. czechplastik

    czechplastik Well-Known Member

    breadnatty08 likes this.
  19. Sombre

    Sombre Well-Known Member

    I want the last 15 minutes of my life back!
  20. jroc

    jroc Well-Known Member

  21. 330D

    330D From My Cold Dead Hands VIP Member

    Me too, would I be here if it were otherwise?
  22. Rlad78

    Rlad78 Member



    Anyway, the answer is 1.

    First off, we must follow PEMDAS


    Therefore, we start out with the parenthesis

  23. Stinky Stinky

    Stinky Stinky Well-Known Member


    LOL I was wrong! :D


    I told you I suck at maths! :cool:

    Hmm every day life hey?

    Not a maths question but has numbers involved, that is a little strange but that is cool by me :)

    So then what...


    I think it's TIME!!!



    I am going crazy trying to answer this 1 :)
  24. Stinky Stinky

    Stinky Stinky Well-Known Member

    No wait I think I am tripping LOL :)

    Never mind what I said I am going tokig / crazy :D
  25. sonofaresiii

    sonofaresiii Well-Known Member

    1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 6, 1, 7, 1, 8, 1, 9, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2...

    the first number denotes the unit's sequential order, the second the "round." It's like a date followed by a year.

    edited because I forgot one of the numbers

Share This Page