# 6

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Vihzel, Apr 28, 2011.

?

## 6Ã·2(1+2) = ?

94 vote(s)
54.3%

77 vote(s)
44.5%

2 vote(s)
1.2%
1. ### Bob Maxey Well-Known Member 223

Sep 24, 2010
4,836
806
223
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?

Bob

#26
2. ### EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator 10,118

Jun 10, 2010
57,623
70,354
10,118
New Mexico, USA
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.

#27
3. ### Bob Maxey Well-Known Member 223

Sep 24, 2010
4,836
806
223
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

#28
4. ### sonofaresiii Well-Known Member 68

Apr 9, 2011
500
49
68
NYC
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.

#29
5. ### czechplastik Well-Known Member 53

Apr 25, 2010
343
42
53
Belfast, Northern Ireland
1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 6, 1, 7, 1, 8...etc etc

#30
6. ### Bob Maxey Well-Known Member 223

Sep 24, 2010
4,836
806
223
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.

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)

Bob

#31
7. ### EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator 10,118

Jun 10, 2010
57,623
70,354
10,118
New Mexico, USA
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.

#32
8. ### Bob Maxey Well-Known Member 223

Sep 24, 2010
4,836
806
223
I hope 1 + 1 still equals 2, or I'll be sad.

#33
Xyro likes this.
9. ### 330D From My Cold Dead Hands VIP Member 213

Mar 4, 2010
2,863
779
213
operator
upstate NY
Give a bunch of geeks some numbers....

#34
10. ### jroc Well-Known Member 363

Apr 10, 2010
2,614
358
363
lol@the last 2 posts...

#35
11. ### EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator 10,118

Jun 10, 2010
57,623
70,354
10,118
New Mexico, USA
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.

#36
12. ### Bob Maxey Well-Known Member 223

Sep 24, 2010
4,836
806
223
I like Geeks. Not in squads, but individually.

#37
13. ### sonofaresiii Well-Known Member 68

Apr 9, 2011
500
49
68
NYC
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.

#38
14. ### Bob Maxey Well-Known Member 223

Sep 24, 2010
4,836
806
223
when should I hand out the answer?

CLUE: Horology, think Horology

#39
15. ### Vihzel Destroying Balls Everyday VIP Member 323

Apr 8, 2010
5,364
1,055
323
NYU Student & Real Estate Agent
Manhattan, NY
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!

#40
16. ### jroc Well-Known Member 363

Apr 10, 2010
2,614
358
363
^See...u know what.....

#41
17. ### sonofaresiii Well-Known Member 68

Apr 9, 2011
500
49
68
NYC
I really, really hope it doesn't turn out I'm pulling this explanation out of my @ss

#42
18. ### czechplastik Well-Known Member 53

Apr 25, 2010
343
42
53
Belfast, Northern Ireland
2+2=5

#43
19. ### Sombre Well-Known Member 48

Apr 10, 2011
123
21
48
I.T. Professional
Canberra, Australia
I want the last 15 minutes of my life back!

#44

Apr 10, 2010
2,614
358
363

lol!!

#45
21. ### 330D From My Cold Dead Hands VIP Member 213

Mar 4, 2010
2,863
779
213
operator
upstate NY
Me too, would I be here if it were otherwise?

#46

Dec 30, 2010
16
0
15
SC, USA
Wrong

First off, we must follow PEMDAS

Parenthesis
Exponentials
Multiplication
Division
Subtraction

Therefore, we start out with the parenthesis

6

#47
23. ### Stinky Stinky Well-Known Member 533

Aug 31, 2010
4,211
2,118
533
Monkey
In a Dumpster!
Hahah!

LOL I was wrong!

Yay!

I told you I suck at maths!

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...

NO DON'T FRACKING JOKE!!!

I think it's TIME!!!

xD

Hahahaa!

I am going crazy trying to answer this 1

#48
24. ### Stinky Stinky Well-Known Member 533

Aug 31, 2010
4,211
2,118
533
Monkey
In a Dumpster!
No wait I think I am tripping LOL

Never mind what I said I am going tokig / crazy

#49
25. ### sonofaresiii Well-Known Member 68

Apr 9, 2011
500
49
68
NYC
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

#50