6÷2（2+1）=？ - Page 12 - TennisForum.com
 View Poll Results: ？ 1. 40 26.85% 9. 99 66.44% Others.(Please specify.) 2 1.34% Hard to say. 8 5.37% Voters: 149. You may not vote on this poll

Old Oct 12th, 2012, 03:38 AM
Enemy of Art

Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,983

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

Quote:
Originally Posted by jameshazza View Post
Division comes before Multiplication

You got lucky this time because the division sign comes first left-to-right. You would have been dead wrong had those signs been reversed.

I am on der Tvitter, accumulating haters. https://twitter.com/Hurleytennis
Hurley is offline

Old Oct 12th, 2012, 03:40 AM
Senior Member

Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 15,899

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurley View Post
Apropos of nothing, if you don't know the difference between "its" and "it's," I hope it's because you're functionally retarded and no one likes you.

Oooh a racist grammar police? Go to Becca's board and bitch about me with your other 5 personalities.
LeRoy. is offline
Old Oct 12th, 2012, 03:41 AM
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,187

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurley View Post

You got lucky this time because the division sign comes first left-to-right. You would have been dead wrong had those signs been reversed.
Ain't nobody got time for that.

Yuryevna,
Always
jameshazza is offline
Old Oct 12th, 2012, 03:42 AM
Enemy of Art

Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,983

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

Quote:
Originally Posted by jameshazza View Post
Ain't nobody got time for that.
Ah, touché.

I am on der Tvitter, accumulating haters. https://twitter.com/Hurleytennis
Hurley is offline
Old Oct 12th, 2012, 03:44 AM
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 13,501

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

Quote:
Originally Posted by égalité View Post
Of course there is. Mathematicians don't establish rules like these unless they're essential. Here's why it matters for the problem in this thread:

Multiplication of real numbers is associative: (ab)c=a(bc).

Take four nonzero integers a,b,c,d and multiply: a times b/c times d.

By associativity, (ab/c)d=a(b/cd).

But interpreting these expressions in the same manner that is used to achieve an answer of 1, we get (ab/c)d=(abd)/c, and a(b/cd)=ab/(cd). These are not equal. If we mess around with order of operations, multiplication becomes non-associative.
I'm not sure if I'm understand where you're getting at. Help me if you have time.

You supplied semantics for the expression and then by associativity you showed that (ab/c)d=a(b/cd). Then you gave an interpretation to these two (equal by associativity) expressions. And since (abd)/c is not equal to ab/(cd), this shows that multiplication becomes non-associative.

But why would we expect (abd)/c and ab/(cd) to be equal? You showed that they were equal by associativity based on the first interpretation that you provided. Then you applied another interpretation ("interpreting...in the same manner that is used to achieve an answer of 1"). Is the identity relation still true if the semantics change? Shouldn't (ab/c)d interpreted as ((ab)/c)d if we interpret in the same manner that is used to achieve an answer of 1?

You're probably right; It's not at all obvious that it's arbitrary in the way that I meant it.

Last edited by Novichok; Oct 12th, 2012 at 03:49 AM.
Novichok is offline
Old Oct 12th, 2012, 03:55 AM
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hingistan
Posts: 13,158

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novichok View Post
I'm not sure if I'm understand where you're getting at. Help me if you have time.

You supplied semantics for the expression and then you by associativity you showed that (ab/c)d=a(b/cd). Then you gave an interpretation to these two (equal by associativity) expressions. And since (abd)/c is not equal to ab/(cd), this shows that multiplication becomes non-associative.

But why would we expect (abd)/c and ab/(cd) to be equal? You showed that they were equal by associativity based on the first interpretation that you provided. Then you applied another interpretation ("interpreting...in the same manner that is used to achieve an answer of 1"). Is the identity relation still true if the semantics change? Shouldn't (ab/c)d interpreted as ((ab)/c)d if we interpret in the same manner that is used to achieve an answer of 1?

You're probably right; It's not at all obvious that it's arbitrary in the way that I meant it.
I didn't show they were equal. I said that they SHOULD be equal based on the fact that multiplication of real numbers is associative. But if you rearrange the terms on the left hand side, you get (ab/c)d=d(ab/c)=(dab)/c=(abd)/c (justified by the fact that multiplication is also commutative). If you rearrange the terms on the right hand side, according to the flawed order of operations being used in this thread, you get a(b/cd)=a(b/(cd))=(ab)/(cd). So the two things that were supposed to be equal are not equal. You can certainly find numbers that make (abd)/c=(ab)/(cd) true, like if they're all equal to 1, for example, but this is ALWAYS supposed to be true, not just sometimes.

It's a proof by contradiction. Assume that order of operations works in the "6/2(2+1)=1" way, derive a mathematical absurdity, conclude that your assumption was wrong.

Bitttchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh You Better Pay It Honey! The Devil Is A Liar!!!!! Bitches Get Interviews And Shit? Where They Do That At Honey? Girls Are Late Honey!!!! The Queen Needs To Get Into It Honey Cause The Girls Is Late Out Here! Yes Honey Im Throwing Epic Shade!

Management!
égalité is online now
Old Oct 12th, 2012, 04:07 AM
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 31,642

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

If it's 9, then there should be parentheses around the 6/2.

In this case it is 6/(2(2+1)), which is obviously 1.
LebaneseLagoon is offline
Old Oct 12th, 2012, 04:09 AM
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Opportunity
Posts: 1,811

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

It's 9

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

or

6/2 * (2+1) = 3 * (2+1) = (distributing the 3) = (3*2 + 3*1) = (6+3) = 9

Now, IF you're a calculator, then, probably this equation will end up in 1

Vera Zvonareva / Elena Vesnina / Ekaterina Makarova

Svetlana Kuznetsova / Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova / Maria Kirilenko / Valeria Savinykh

Anastasia Myskina / Maria Sharapova / Elena Dementieva
Pvt. Kovalenko is offline
Old Oct 12th, 2012, 04:19 AM
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 31,642

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pvt. Kovalenko View Post
It's 9

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

or

6/2 * (2+1) = 3 * (2+1) = (distributing the 3) = (3*2 + 3*1) = (6+3) = 9

Now, IF you're a calculator, then, probably this equation will end up in 1
But you're using the wrong equation.

6/2(2+1) not 6/2 * (2+1)

This is all about division, not order of operations.
LebaneseLagoon is offline
Old Oct 12th, 2012, 04:21 AM
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hingistan
Posts: 13,158

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otlichno View Post
But you're using the wrong equation.

6/2(2+1) not 6/2 * (2+1)

This is all about division, not order of operations.
These are the same. I actually provided a proof of this on the previous page.

Bitttchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh You Better Pay It Honey! The Devil Is A Liar!!!!! Bitches Get Interviews And Shit? Where They Do That At Honey? Girls Are Late Honey!!!! The Queen Needs To Get Into It Honey Cause The Girls Is Late Out Here! Yes Honey Im Throwing Epic Shade!

Management!
égalité is online now
Old Oct 12th, 2012, 04:22 AM
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 13,501

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

Quote:
Originally Posted by égalité View Post
I didn't show they were equal. I said that they SHOULD be equal based on the fact that multiplication of real numbers is associative. But if you rearrange the terms on the left hand side, you get (ab/c)d=d(ab/c)=(dab)/c=(abd)/c (justified by the fact that multiplication is also commutative). If you rearrange the terms on the right hand side, according to the flawed order of operations being used in this thread, you get a(b/cd)=a(b/(cd))=(ab)/(cd). So the two things that were supposed to be equal are not equal. You can certainly find numbers that make (abd)/c=(ab)/(cd) true, like if they're all equal to 1, for example, but this is ALWAYS supposed to be true, not just sometimes.

It's a proof by contradiction. Assume that order of operations works in the "6/2(2+1)=1" way, derive a mathematical absurdity, conclude that your assumption was wrong.
Ok. I'm just confused.

Isn't the identity relation (ab/c)d=d(ab/c)=(dab)/c=(abd)/c dependent on the semantics?

If we change the semantics, why should we expect the identity relation to be true?
Novichok is offline
Old Oct 12th, 2012, 04:29 AM
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hingistan
Posts: 13,158

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novichok View Post
Ok. I'm just confused.

Isn't the identity relation (ab/c)d=d(ab/c)=(dab)/c=(abd)/c dependent on the semantics?

If we change the semantics, why should we expect the identity relation to be true?
No, all the steps there are true in both versions of order of operations in question.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by "dependent on the semantics!"

Bitttchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh You Better Pay It Honey! The Devil Is A Liar!!!!! Bitches Get Interviews And Shit? Where They Do That At Honey? Girls Are Late Honey!!!! The Queen Needs To Get Into It Honey Cause The Girls Is Late Out Here! Yes Honey Im Throwing Epic Shade!

Management!
égalité is online now
Old Oct 12th, 2012, 04:33 AM
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 31,642

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

Quote:
Originally Posted by égalité View Post
These are the same. I actually provided a proof of this on the previous page.
Oh, okay.

Thanks for that.
LebaneseLagoon is offline
Old Oct 12th, 2012, 04:37 AM
Senior Member

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,034

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

Quote:
Originally Posted by égalité View Post
Of course there is. Mathematicians don't establish rules like these unless they're essential. Here's why it matters for the problem in this thread:

Multiplication of real numbers is associative: (ab)c=a(bc).

Take four nonzero integers a,b,c,d and multiply: a times b/c times d. A x (B/C) x D

By associativity, (ab/c)d=a(b/cd).

But interpreting these expressions in the same manner that is used to achieve an answer of 1, we get (ab/c)d=(abd)/c, and a(b/cd)=ab/(cd). These are not equal. If we mess around with order of operations, multiplication becomes non-associative.

Fixed.
PhilePhile is offline
Old Oct 12th, 2012, 04:38 AM
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hingistan
Posts: 13,158

Re: 6÷2（2+1）=？

Yeah, that's what I said.

Bitttchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh You Better Pay It Honey! The Devil Is A Liar!!!!! Bitches Get Interviews And Shit? Where They Do That At Honey? Girls Are Late Honey!!!! The Queen Needs To Get Into It Honey Cause The Girls Is Late Out Here! Yes Honey Im Throwing Epic Shade!

Management!
égalité is online now

Message:
Options

## Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.

User Name:
OR

## Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.