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 @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 @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @Feinmuehrer Stop using PEMDAS as a mental crutch and maybe you won't get confused. This whole discussion just shows PEMDAS is worthless because it isn't taught correctly and is interpreted multiple ways.

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer PEMDAS is not a "mental crutch" and is not "worthless". I agree that it seems it is taught incorrectly and leads to confusion.

Tell me, what's the answer to the equation 6/2 * (1+2)?

@Suzu @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer 9, because 2 * (1+2) is not the exact same expression as 2(1+2). which is what I've been trying to get across this entire time

and PEMDAS is a mental crutch. I haven't actually thought "please excuse my dear aunt sally" since middle school, I just *know* how to execute algebra, and I do so accurately

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer so what you are telling me is that 2( (which is an implicit way of writing 2 * ( ) is somehow different from 2 *, and should be solved before anything else. And somehow you think everyone else is confused.

@Suzu @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer Well gee whiz, I'm sorry that math has more going on than basic arithmetic and you need to learn about implied multiplication. And I sure hope nobody adds more symbols than +, -, /, and *, that would be fucking crazy.

@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer well gee whiz, you can say that this is just basic mathematics, and that you don't care how many nerds are cited, and that you always did it that way and never got in trouble, whatever.

But you are wrong.

https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/64973/329519100abd447ea0d49747258d1094/ISO-80000-2-2019.pdf