Isn’t this like grade skool lvl

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45624724)

Parentheses = 2+1 = 3

Exponents = N/A

Multiplication 2 x 3 = 6

Division 6 / 6 = 1

Addition = N/A

Subtraction = N/A

So the answer is 1 using PEMDAS, right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45626760)

Don't you do M and D at the same time left to right? Like M isn't before D.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45624748)

multiplication & division are on the same level and you're supposed to do whichever one comes first when reading L --> R

same with addition & subtraction

i am sorry your teachers failed u

also no, i don't think i'm smart because i can answer a math Q for children

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45624753)

Similarly, subtraction is just addition using negative numbers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45627098)

Since it's just a social convention, it doesn't really matter that D and M are just the inverse of each other. I mean, you could say that E is the same as M in a sense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45627746)

Just use the old mnemonic, EVERY PENIS MUST ASSFUCK.

Enclosures: 6 ÷ 2(3)

Powers: <no change>

Multiplicative operations: 3(3)

9

Additive operations: <no change>

Answer = 9

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45624847)

whether or not someone answers this question correctly doesn't say much about his or her iq since getting the correct answer implies that someone had proper schooling

but i don't think it's up for debate that nine is the correct answer

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45624937)

you could apply what you just said to math in general. what you said is meaningless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45624952)

next you're going to ask, "why does the symbol '+' mean you should perform addition? why not use a smiley face or a squiggle?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45624975)

EDIT: Since you seem to be rapidly editing the above to state your bona fides (idgaf) here's a quote (which you've already changed much)

>>>why are you trying to insult me without basis because i'm stating the truth? you're going to want to teach your kids that the answer is nine for when they take standardized tests. and no, i did very well on standardized tests in school without trying. that doesn't make me better than you, though. it's just a fact.

next you're going to ask, "why does the symbol '+' mean you should perform addition? why not use a smiley face or a squiggle?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45624980)

and i just removed the last sentence (a separate paragraph) that mentioned that i feel bad for your kids. that was out of line.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45624988)

>>>

Date: December 13th, 2022 12:17 AM

Author: Higher T than 95% of xo users

dang i just feel bad for you

and i just removed the last sentence (a separate paragraph) that mentioned that i feel bad for your kids. that was out of line.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45629390)

(And of course, different formalisms/conventions will suit different uses. For example, early computers made Reverse Polish Notation practical, since you could compute stuff w/ stack. Etc.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45625384)

1) First, philosophers of mathematics disagree on whether there is such a thing as a "correct" formalism. Some say that mathematical objects "exist" in some metaphysical sense and hence must be described correctly. If the formalism you choose doesn't map to this Platonic ideal of a mathematical object, then your formalism is wrong. Others would disagree and say that a formalism is just a set of rules and any relationship between these rules and the real world is a happy coincidence. Only if you accept this latter world view is it correct to say that there is no "correct" formalism to use.

2) Even if you accept the idea that there is no universally correct formalism, in many situations, there is still a formalism that everyone (or nearly everyone uses). While it is known that you cannot deduce Euclid's parallel postulate from his other postulates, virtually everyone accepts it anyway. And unless you explicitly say that you are working in a non-Euclidean geometric space, most people will consider you to be "wrong" if you violate the parallel postulate.

In this case, I think there is a very strong consensus that the correct answer should be 9 here. But as the article that OldHLSDude poasted shows, it apparently is not a universal consensus. So I probably wouldn't say that 1 is absolutely the wrong answer here, but a strong argument could be made that it is "wrong" in some sense or another.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45630585)

https://www.themathdoctors.org/order-of-operations-implicit-multiplication/

The safe thing is to use parentheses, brackets, etc. to group operations the way you want them.

Phys Review does not like the x sign for multiplication unless it's a vector operation. Ditto for the dot.

It's fucking amazing that more things don't explode and fall down.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45625004)

The reason the answer is 9 is because division isn't really an operator. It's just a convenient shorthand for multiplying the first number by the reciprocal of the second number. And that operation is obviously not commutative. And unless you clearly specify that the second argument of the division operator is an expression, the convention is to interpret it as a single number. So the expression in the OP should be interpreted as

6 * (1/2) * (1+2)

If they wanted the answer to be 1, it should have been written as

6 / [2*(1+2)]

HTH

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45625277)

An “xo iq test” is reduced to knowing convention. *The second argument of the divisor operator is treated as a single number. *

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45625345)

3(2+2)/3(2+2) = 16

The convention should be:

- The ÷ is retarded and should be treated like the fraction line if retards want to use it.

- Where no operator symbol is used to multiply, the adjacent numbers should be treated as a unit.

That's what people overwhelmingly do when they do math. This ÷ shit is midwittery for high school teachers and Facebook posts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45625352)

I don't know what you mean by saying "division isn't really an operator." An operator is just a function that takes 0 or more terms and spits out a well-defined term, no? And while it's trivially true you can back it out of multiplication (hence the famous Tarski result etc.), one shouldn't leave out that division can be thought of as both quotition & partition -- particularly helpful if thinking about proofs and stuff like how the Pythagoreans saw #.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45625414)

My broader point is that it is incorrect to say that the correct answer is 9 because you must perform the operations left to right. Since addition and multiplication are both commutative, the order of operations doesn't matter. The real issue here is what are the inputs to the division "operator." Unless it is clearly spelled out (usually using parentheses), most books and calculators adopt the convention that only the number directly to the right of the division sign is passed to the division operator.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45627095)

My 2c:

What you say re left-to-right not mattering is implied in my EVERY PENIS MUST ASSFUCK answer [EPMA: Enclosures, Power operations, Multiplicative operations, Additive operations] --- which doesn't mention direction.

I understand that division can be composed out of multiplication (i.e., multiplying by the reciprocal), but: (i) that doesn't mean division is not an "operator" [it is, as we agree]; (ii) your claim "addition and multiplication[]" are "the two fundamental operators" on the reals---presumably referring to the usual field axioms---is confusing since there are alternate ways to construct the reals+rig up the field to behave like arithmetic should {not to mention alternate arithmetics besides Peano some of which do not need addition/multiplication, e.g., Tarski); (iii) it's true we want to group multiplicative & additive operations, but that's not b/c some are more fundamental but b/c of operator precedence & associativity [as distinct from mathematical associativity, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_associativity ] -- which is a matter of convention as I said elsewhere ITT.

Most fundamentally, I don't see why a particular method of constructing the real number field should influence how we teach kids the fundamental operations of arithmetic.

In terms of gaining a deeper understanding: I'd prefer a kid know about division and its dual nature as both quotition and partition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotition_and_partition -- esp. since you do not want them to erroneously conclude that exponentiation is just repeated multiplication & get the wrong idea. Cf. https://rationalexpressions.blogspot.com/2013/11/exponents-without-repeated.html [nice idea about how to get kids ready for exponentiation without introducing meaningless formalisms too early].

I also want the kid to know about the distributive property & that you can convert division to multiplication by multiplying by the reciprocal, etc. etc. (hence why you normally can't divide by zero), ofc, but I felt a need to speak up for my friend the obelus.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45628729)

6 ÷ 2(1 + 2) -> 6 / 2 + 4 -> 7

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45626673)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45628585)

Physical Review style guidelines state that multiplication, whether implicit or explicit, be given precedence.

According to Wikipedia Feynman's books also follow this convention. It's the way I have always done it, though I recognize the alternative, which I think has been driven by electronic computation. Wolfram Alpha gives 9 as the answer as do spreadsheets, though the latter do not allow implicit multiplication.

In any event, it's ambiguous so parentheses are best.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45633165)

Indeed.

It is fun to think about, and potentially important if you need to optimize c code or something like that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5251988&forum_id=2#45633174)