PEMDAS strikes Twitter: 6 / 2 (1+2) = ?

Idiot

6 / 2 • (1+2) 6 / 2 • (3) 3 • (3) = 9

You work from left to right so divide first and then multiply. That’s how you get 9.

The answer is 1.

It is an ugly equation which can render 2 answers.

This stupid equation pops up every few months, I think it first made its appearance on Twitter in 2016.

It's a kind of trick question because it's been formatted in a way that is technically correct yet isn't the way an equation like that would usually be written. It's almost a troll, in a way.

I got '1,' too. Aren't you supposed to do those in parentheses first?

The answer is 1, as I see it.

6 divided by 6 = 1

It's 1. it does not have a divide symbol between 2 and (1+2).

R6, google tells you to treat it as *3.

Then, THEN, you have to start back at the beginning: 6/2*3=9

The limit does not exist!

Yeah, deliberately misleading. Though I don't understand how someone arrived at 7.

Always do what's in parenthesis first. So 2+1=3

Then, because the 2 is next to the parenthesis, that gets done second. So 2×3=6

Then you do the remainder of the equation. So 6÷6=1

I don't understand how it can be solved any other way.

6 / (2*1) * (2*2) = 7 And it’s because of hazy calculus memories.

If you do not get 1, then you do not understand and should give up.

M/D are equal and A/S are equal and are worked left to right when adjacent to each other. That's how the answer is nine.

FOIL

I took mathematics at University. The answer is1.

R15 bless your heart - are you able to see the parentheses?

Parentheses are first but then multiplication and division coke before addition and subtraction. If you have both multiplication and division, you go left to right.

So I believe the answer is 6/2 x 3 = 9

coke = go

[quote]because the 2 is next to the parenthesis, that gets done second

No, it doesn't, that's not a rule.

Read the reply from Ramin_HAL9001 on this thread.

Parentheses go first but just because the parentheses are right next to another number doesn’t mean that multiplication goes next

Here are the relevant bits of the Reddit reply. The confusion comes from the juxtaposition of the 2 and (1+2).

He misspells a few words but he's right.

[quote]The confusion comes from something called "multiplacation by juxtaposition." That is, when you write a number before a letter, like "2t" or next to brackets, like "2(t-1)" without actually writing the × symbol as in "2×a" or "2×(t-1)". Juxtaposition means "next to each other."

[quote]Notice that the question that you copied here is deliberately designed to confuse people about multiplication by juxtaposition: the division ÷ operator and multiplication operators are both left associative, but the juxtaposed multiplication of "2(1+2)" is on the right of the division sign. So you are forced to choose whether or not juxtaposed multiplication is the same precedence as division, or is higher precedence. Since no one can agree, and since both are wrong, they get into huge arguments. It is a very good way to troll people.

r18

[quote]bless your heart - are you able to see the parentheses?

Already accounted for...

The 2(1+2) MUST be solved first!

The basic answer is sometimes you first multiply the numbers next to each other when parentheses are involved, sometimes you don't, and the real problem is that the equations written in the way this one has been are deliberately confusing.

[quote]Sideways Formatting and Multiplication-by-Juxtaposition

[quote]This next example displays an issue that almost never arises but, when it does, there seems to be no end to the arguing. (It's become annoying popular to post these to Facebook.)

[quote]...even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses seem somehow to outrank division...

[quote]Note that different software packages will process this expression differently; even different models of Texas Instruments graphing calculators will process this expression differently. The general consensus among math people is that "multiplication by juxtaposition" (that is, multiplying by just putting things next to each other, rather than using the "×" sign) indicates that the juxtaposed values must be multiplied together before processing other operations. But not all software is programmed this way, and sometimes teachers view things differently. If in doubt, ask! And, when typing things out sideways, be very careful of your parentheses, and make your meaning clear, so as to avoid precisely this ambiguity.

R25- nope. 1+2 must be solved first.

2(3) isn’t solved next just because they are next to each other.

The rule is left to right if the equation has both multiplication and division

Some people say they ARE solved next, that the juxtaposed numbers being multiplied get solved first even if they are not first in left-to-right order.

Others will say no, you must do it left-to-right regardless of any juxtaposed numbers to be multiplied.

If the equation was written 6 / 2 x (1+2) then the meaning would be clear. But because there is no "x" sign, the multiplied numbers on the right, to some, take precedence over the left-to-right rule.

That's why this equation keeps getting posted. It's a trick. It's been written in an unclear way so as to cause arguments.

This AGAIN? It is a troll equation. People fall for it every time, but it is a poorly written equation designed to cause arguments and get attention.

The correct answer to the equation is - fuck off, troll!

The 2 outside the parentheses can be taken into it: 2(1+2) = (2+4) = 6. If the denominator were 2 x (1+2) I would get 9 but I don’t here. In any case, it’s a TROLL of question, thanks OP! 😈

LOL! The gays are doing math now. 😲

R31 God you’re a dumb fuck...

R31 - what do you mean by "now"?

Maths

♡ R32 - you posted as I was typing.

R33 snap!!! ❤️

Certainly, the answer to this question—like all things in life—is 42.

Mmmmm...Pie

Did the 30 Helens ever do math?

I got 6.

I got a rock.

[quote]LOL! The gays are doing math now.

We got your number, hussy.

Children of a Lesser God

The movie is about deaf students. Is it implying that deaf children were made by a lesser God and that is why they have flaws? I can't recall an instance where they explained it.

Sorry. Wrong thread.

R44 is worse than Hitler.

R45 made me chuckle because he said that with love in his heart, not bitterness.

And the timing was perfect.

R46 = Magda Goebbels