• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

6÷2(1+2) = ?

  • 9

    Votes: 94 54.3%
  • 1

    Votes: 77 44.5%
  • 7

    Votes: 2 1.2%

  • Total voters
    173
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.

Smiley

Bob
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 6, 1, 7, 1, 8...etc etc

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)

Bob
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.

I simply got it wrong.
 
Upvote 0
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.

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.
 
Upvote 0
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!
 
Upvote 0
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
;)
 
Upvote 0

Wrong

62cef8fd_e5c1_238a.gif



Anyway, the answer is 1.

First off, we must follow PEMDAS

Parenthesis
Exponentials
Multiplication
Division
Addition
Subtraction

Therefore, we start out with the parenthesis

6
 
Upvote 0

BEST TECH IN 2023

We've been tracking upcoming products and ranking the best tech since 2007. Thanks for trusting our opinion: we get rewarded through affiliate links that earn us a commission and we invite you to learn more about us.

Smartphones