Yes, she votes, as do millions just like her
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
It is still somewhat ambiguous, I believe. Many people were taught the way that gives you 1, not 9. Which leads me to agree with the argument that the issue is the equation itself, not which answer you get. It's just a troll statement that doesn't use sensible notation, and is thus useless for everything outside of trolling people. At least it does that exceptionally well, though.
I'm responding to my own comment, since whoever responded to me saying it wasn't ambiguous deleted the comment as I replied.
I've been breaking it down in various ways myself, as well as watching different people explain and talk about it. There's plenty of ambiguity. Mathematicians don't agree.
There are methods that imply 6/(2(1+2)) as how to read that, and that comes up with 1.
Another way of explaining it is the slash often ends up with...
6
───────
2 (2+1)
Which is 6/6, which is 1.
The statement is intentionally confusing, meant to be solved different ways by different people.
I think the best way I've heard it described is that this is a grammar problem, not a math problem.
How could it lead to a 1 though? I thought it was 1 initially, but that was because I made a mistake in the precedence.
EDIT: I see your other comment. But who was 'taught' the first form? And what is that even? Is it that multiplication precedes division?
How does such a simple not-even-an-equation cause so much trouble?
By resolving the P(arenthetical) first, which includes both the inside and outside of the parenthesis. That side resolves to 6, so when we get to MD(ivide) it's 6 / 6, which of course equals 1.
People fight over what to do with parentheticals, which I find odd. It seems only natural that unless there's an operation sign between the number outside the parenthesis and the parenthesis itself, that the whole shebang attached to the parenthesis is a numerical "clause" that needs to be resolved as a chunk first (the P in PEMDAS) before it can be operated upon by other signs. I guess to other people, there is no significance in the fact that a digit can be stuck to the side of a parenthesis. They resolve what's outside first. Strikes me as odd.
Yeah, I may just be doing it wrong, too. That's definitely a possibility. I'm generally good at math, but it's also been years since I had to do any of this stuff, and I don't remember all the details. I also tried it through from some other angles, and was coming up mostly with the "9" answer. So I think I'm just wrong, and talked myself around in circles. Although I still stand by that it's a weird ass statement that's meant to be confusing.
Because it's designed to.
Bleh, even though I'm mostly settled, I'm not totally satisfied with my answers, either. I could even make a (probably retarded) argument for something along the lines of what the person in the pic tried to do, with an answer of 7. But generally, no matter how I skew it, I'm getting the 9 version. I'm still not completely sold though, but that's probably just human error.
Come to think of it, another comment showed me that you may have been correct. If you regard the whole expression as a fraction (and I don't see why you would, but you could decide to), then it really does become (A)/(B).
And if you do that, you do end up with 6/6.
See some of the videos I linked too, I think they make compelling arguments.
PEMDAS gives you 9, but the issue there is PEMDAS is overly simplistic and doesn't seem to be what people who actually use math do.
Juxtaposition/implied multiplication is given precedence over multiplication/division, for something more along the lines of PEJMDAS, and that gives you 1.
I think "1" is more correct, but the real answer is still that this is a grammar problem, not a math problem. If this was clarified for readability, it would only output one (easily found) clean answer, but it's intentionally trolling people instead. This is not complicated math, it's unclear notation.
I've been breaking it down in various ways myself, as well as watching different people explain and talk about it. There's plenty of ambiguity.
There are methods that imply 6/(2(1+2)) as how to read that, and that comes up with 1.
Another way of explaining it is the slash often ends up with...
6
───────
2 (2+1)
Which is 6/6, which is 1.
The statement is intentionally confusing, meant to be solved different ways by different people.
I think the best way I've heard it described is that this is a grammar problem, not a math problem.