@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer
No, because the 2 doesn't get there as a 2, but as 3.

Why is it so hard to understand, that this is the way we were thought math?

@LukeAlmighty @deprecated_ii
>No, because the 2 doesn't get there as a 2, but as 3.

what

@warmbeverageenjoyer @deprecated_ii
Ok.... try simplifying it to multiplications only.

6*0,5*3

It is the same equation, but first, the parantecies were solved (1+2=3), and then, the (x/2) was transformed to x*0,5

Therefore it is 6*0,5*3

Therefore, the first half of the equation is >>>6*0,5 = 3<<<

You get 3*(1+2)

@LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer @deprecated_ii There is no multiplication operation in this problem. Parenthesis represent anonymous inline variables, not a multiplier.

Saying "2(1+2)" is the same as saying "2x where x=1+2".

Parenthesis are just a shorter, more convenient way of doing that.

@LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer You're using a separate set of rules than is used anywhere else in math. I just recently refreshed myself on college level math, calculus and discrete math and some linear algebra, and if I was doing what you claim is the correct order of operations for all that I would have rarely gotten a correct answer.

The 2 doesn't "get there", it's already there. 6 = (2+4) = 2(1+2), that's how it works, you don't get to throw away part of the 6 just because it left the inside of the parentheses.

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer
It's not a separate set of rules from rest of math, it is a different set, then you were thought.

Are you seriously so low IQ, you don't get, that math is thought differently across the world?

@LukeAlmighty @deprecated_ii
you keep saying "thought" instead of "taught" please stop

@warmbeverageenjoyer @deprecated_ii
Thank you

@LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer How about you go fuck yourself, you gay nigger?

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer
Go get some help.
This is a math problem, not a warcrime. You're way too invested in this.

@LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer Don't insult people if you don't want them to fire back, prick.

@deprecated_ii @LukeAlmighty retard fiiiiight go go go

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer
It's not an insult. I am vorried.
This is a language definition problem, and you cannot accept the simple fact, that someone on another continent had a different teacher.

@LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer If you people from foreign countries can't understand basic algebra as soon as the variables go away, that's a very strong argument for isolation and the end of all intellectual collaboration. I don't need some foreign retard wrecking my expensive project because he can't do middle school math, and gets an answer that's wrong by several orders of magnitude.

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer
Trust me, I am all for separation from your DEI obsessed nation full of nigger cattle.

@LukeAlmighty @deprecated_ii
>the czech thinks he's in a position to talk about niggercattle

@warmbeverageenjoyer @deprecated_ii
0.03 percent of population

Yeah, I think I am in the good position.

@LukeAlmighty @deprecated_ii niggercattle aren't exclusively black people, you yugoslav trog

@warmbeverageenjoyer @deprecated_ii
> In the United States, the average adult man has a BMI of 26.6 and the average adult woman has a BMI of 26.5.

Your insults mean nothing

@LukeAlmighty @deprecated_ii
hey retard, you're literally fat enough to roll yourself down to bosnia
image.png

@warmbeverageenjoyer @deprecated_ii
Yeah, we are a proud nation

@warmbeverageenjoyer @deprecated_ii
Also, the list you provided puts United states BMI at 28.8

@LukeAlmighty @deprecated_ii shhHhhhHHH focus on yourself, it is unbecoming of you to compare yourself to others' success

@warmbeverageenjoyer @deprecated_ii
I do focus on us first.
As I said, we are a proud nation.

@LukeAlmighty @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer Are you Moravian? In my experience they are also gay retards like you.

@deprecated_ii @LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer No, you are wrong here. The problem here is that it's ambiguous. The only thing unambiguous here is that the parenthesis come first.

6 / 2 * 3

This can be either (6 / 2) * 3 or 6 / (2 * 3) and will either by 9 or 1. Typically, division will be written as a fraction or parenthesis get added. But the answer isn't wrong. More parenthesis need to be added.

The distributive property doesn't apply here at all.

@RealAkoSuminoe @LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer >the distributive property doesn't apply

Of course it does.

The argument you people keep making is "if I change the expression I get a different answer". Well no fucking shit you do.

@deprecated_ii @LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer No change to the expression is needed.

6/2(2 + 1) = 6/2(3) = 3(3) = 9

Division and multiplication get processed at the same precedence level, so this is a perfectly valid way to read that expression.

@RealAkoSuminoe @LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer Only if you ignore the 2 being adjacent to the parentheses by interpreting it as nothing but a multiplication sign. Which is a stupid interpretation and not something you would do in most other contexts.

Obviously I have to agree that the statement is confusing because so many of you are confused about it. I do not have to agree that it's reasonable, all things considered, to arrive at 9 as the answer.

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @RealAkoSuminoe this is why africans build tree swings to get across gaps instead of maintaining bridges the europeans built.

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty but here's the thing: why does the distributive property happen before the division?
I understand, when you talk in terms of algebra, it makes sense that 6/2a, where a = 1+2 will give you the result 1, but the equation 6/2(1+2) is not algebra, and 2(1+2) is just a different way to write 2 * (1+2), the fact the 2 is next to the parenthesis doesn't turn it into a special operator that bypasses PEMDAS.

In the end, math is just a language used to express calculations, and just like any language, there are some conventions, and it requires some clarity on the part of the person writing it. Just like the other stupid equation that caused internet drama earlier this year, this is something that can be solved with the liberal use of parenthesis, you can't just have a regular equation with no context whatsoever and expect people to treat it as an algebraic equation.

@Suzu @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty Because 2(1+2) is its own expression. And yes, 6/2(1+2) follows the same rules as algebra. Why would it be any different? What's the point of teaching arithmetic rules if they're not going to be foundational to algebra?

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty
OK, here I have a mathematician explaining this exact equation in a way that's easier than what I would do. And I'll use it because he reached the same conclusion as me, so I have confirmation bias.

https://invidious.varishangout.net/watch?v=URcUvFIUIhQ

But note that he doesn't say anything about the distributive property, because it really doesn't fit here. Saying that 2(1+2) is it's own equation that must be solved separately is not true, because there is nothing saying it is. You are assuming that 2(1+2) is just a 6 that was split, instead of being a equation that was reached through the insertion of numbers into variables or through the solving of previous equations.

Note that I had a wrong assumption in my last post, because I was taking a look at my college algebra books, and even in algebra you have a liberal use of parenthesis to avoid this kind of confusion.

6/2a is completely different from 6/(2a), wherein the first one is seen as

6
__ a
2

and the second is seen as

6
__
2a

(the formatting is terrible, but I think it can be understood).

@Suzu @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty You don't get to decide the distributive property just doesn't apply here. That's not how math works. If you replace (1+2) with (a+b) you can't resolve the inside into a single element anymore, and you don't get to throw the coefficient away.

The core problem is apparently half the population thinks parentheses mean multiplication only, and that's just not the reality.

The only thing I'll concede about this at all is it's clear that a lot of people find the way the equation is written confusing. That doesn't mean their confused interpretation is correct.

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty
if you replace (1+2) with (a+b) you'll have the same problem.
6/2(a+b). OK.

Who are you to say that you should distribute just the 2, and not the result of the division 6/2?
Are you sure the others are the ones having a confused interpretation about it?

@Suzu @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty If you wanted to distribute the 6/2, you would reduce it to 3, or put 6/2 itself in parentheses. You didn't. So you don't want to distribute it. That's the interpretation that's going to be right 99.9% of the time unless the author has malicious intent.

My understanding of order of operations carried me cleanly through several years of university math. Yeah, I'm pretty confident in my understanding.

And I suspect nobody who is confused by this actually has problems with order of operations in university math classes either. But something about a simple equation with no variables breaks their brains, perhaps *because* 6/2 is so tempting to reduce immediately.

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty if you wanted to distribute just the 2, you would write 2(1+2) as 6, or put it into parenthesis.

@Suzu @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty 🙄

@Suzu @deprecated_ii @LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer
I think what confuses people is 2(3) being written as it is. You have 6/2 having a symbol while 2(3) doesn't, even though this is just a short way of writing it and 6/2(3) = 6/2*(3). this then leads to thinking the one without a symbol is "closer" and needs to be solved first. Though your take is likely true as well.

@Feinmuehrer @LukeAlmighty @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer I actually remember back during the previous drama that a lot of people were reaching the 1 conclusion by saying that the symbol ÷ meant you had to divide everything on the left side by everything on the right side. I though these people were just dumb, but, as he explained, it seems there is some hystorical basis on it being used like that a long time ago.

@Suzu @warmbeverageenjoyer @deprecated_ii @Feinmuehrer
Yes, I also remember that debate :D

Well, anyway. How are we still talking about it?

@LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer @deprecated_ii @Feinmuehrer because from time to time some youtuber brings it back up to draw attention.

@LukeAlmighty @Suzu @warmbeverageenjoyer @deprecated_ii Dunno. It's late and I'm bored so why not.

@Feinmuehrer @warmbeverageenjoyer @deprecated_ii @Suzu
Arguing Over Nothing
Counter Arguments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgaNb7Rr4

I am just tired too....

@Suzu @Feinmuehrer @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty So the new cope is "they started teaching math wrong in the last 15 years, so everyone who learned math before that is wrong". Got it.

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @Feinmuehrer That's not a cope.
The people who were doing that were using an archaic denotation that is controversial because even in the historic sense it's not sure it was like that, and in this denotation somehow the ÷ symbol was different from the / symbol. The mathematician in the video I posted talk about this.

Your mistake here is in using the distributive property in a completely arbitrary way and deciding that this is the correct way, when we have mathematicians, researchers and tools saying the complete opposite: that you solve left to right and then distribute.

As I mentioned, even in algebra they use parenthesis to avoid this, 6/2a is different from 6/(2a), which is what you are doing here.

>when we have mathematicians, researchers and tools saying the complete opposite
A mathematician that was taught common core?

@MCMLXVIIOTG @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @deprecated_ii @Feinmuehrer as opposed to what? Doing-operations-in-the-order-I-want-because-fuck-it core?

@Suzu @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @LukeAlmighty @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer isn't the whole math equation thing kinda pointless?

even in advanced fields, people make it pretty clear where to put numbers and keep it simple enough even the biggest retard can understand

you just need to know where and when to use it more than how to use it

@ninja8tyu @Suzu @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer That's why the best answer to this problem is "question rejected, write it clearly". The actual argument is only about how you read this shit.

@Feinmuehrer @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @deprecated_ii @Suzu @ninja8tyu math is for jews and gay men who make love to children remember that son

@Feinmuehrer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Suzu @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer that's also what pemdas is honestly for

when in doubt, use pemdas, because apparently it makes all the math work out consistently, i recall learning somewhere sometime ago

if the equation is made clear, then just follow where it leads