oh brother, it's this nonsense again. the calculator is right, modern software that works blindly left to right is wrong. this becomes obvious in algebra with variables

the distributive property is being murdered by retards who slept through middle school algebra and this will probably result in a plane crashing into a stadium full of orphans at some point

@deprecated_ii i just did it in my head real quick and also got 1, I don't understand where the confusion is coming from?
im not fantastic at math (anymore) and don't remember the reasoning for a lot of things, but like...
isn't this just order of operations?

@warmbeverageenjoyer people get 9 because they divide the 6 by 2 as the first operation and end up with 3 * (1+2)

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer
No, we get 9 because ÷ and / are treated as the same symbol, meaning, that (1+2) goes first, and then, we end up with 6/2*3 = 3*3 = 9

And it's boring to explain this system over and over and over again.
But division is the same as multiplication.

If I re-write it as 6* (1/2) * (1+2), then there is no argument to be had.

@LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer and you're wrong, because 2(1+2) is the same thing as ((2*1)+(2*2)), because that's what the distributive property means

@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 @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?