I'm going to go with 9 because of order of precedence rules and also because C will evaluate it as such.

But it seems opinions differ.

Have at it!

---

I do know how to spell
AniThyng is merely the name I gave to what became my favourite Baldur's Gate II mage character

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

How do those people favoring incorrect answers try to justify their answers ?

It seems that the most common justification (or at least the only one that comes close to making sense to me) is that they presume that 2( is somehow higher precedence than 2*( so they evaluate it as

6/2(1+2)
6/2(3)
6/6
1

or

given b = (1+2)

does

6/2b = 6b/2 ?

I had jumped to this "intuitively" also at first but after being forced to write it down I came around.

---

I do know how to spell
AniThyng is merely the name I gave to what became my favourite Baldur's Gate II mage character

It's an ambiguous expression, because it's not possible to set standard type using horizontal fractions. If it were, whether it's "6/[2*(1+2)]" or "6/2*(1+2)". With the assumption that what is typed is what is meant, 9 is the correct answer. If it were set with a horizontal fraction instead of the (ambiguous) division operator, it would be immediately obvious which is meant.

Operations with equivalent primacy evaluate left to right. Putting parentheses around 6/2 would add clarity, but not change meaning.

Being out of practice. I did catch myself after my first mistake though.

Judging by the comments on these things that go around Facebook every now and then, people get it wrong because they don't know whether or not to use Order of Operations. Even though you always use it.

---

My Xbox Live Gamertag is Sergeant Matt

"This cosmic dance of bursting decadence and withheld permissions twists all our arms collectively, but if sweetness can win, and it can, then I'll still be here tomorrow to high-five you yesterday, my friend. Peace. " -The Royal Tart Toter

The correct answer is that in algebra, the expression is ambiguous. The left-to-right rule is from calculators and programming languages but not algebra per se. As such the answer is that the expression is technically a form of syntax error.

The correct way to write the expression is either to add additional parenthesis to clarify what you mean of to write it in proper algebraic form:



or

That's what I was trying to say, but I didn't use code blocks to make it clear. Thanks for the reinforcement.

The way I was taught math, it works the way bilateralrope did it. You calculate the stuff in parentheses then figure the result into the equation.

It's not ambiguous. If you want to specify a horizontal fraction using the standard division symbol, you need to enclose the denominator in a set of parenthesis.



translates to



In no case does it translate to , which is evaluated differently.

Where people seem to be making the mistake is applying the order of operations, or as people remember it, PEMDAS. They see Multiplication comes before Division so assume that you have to multiply first when in actuality multiplication and Division (and Addition and subtraction) have the same precedence and in those cases you work the problem for that left to right.

---

Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

I think you can also prove it through mathematical induction.

6/2 * (1+2) = 9

(3*2)/2 * (1+2) = (3)^2

2(2k+1)/2 * (2k+1) = (2k+1)^2

If k is true, then k+1 is true.

2(2(k+1)+1)/2 * (2(k+1)+1) = (2(k+1)+1)^2

Simply: (2k+3)(2k+3)=(2k+3)^2

I think I've skipped a step in the induction process of where we add (2k+3)(2k+3) to both sides of our original equation but it should suffice to show that LHS = RHS in this instance no matter for what value of k; also I'm not 100% if that's what you do when you are not proving a sequence/series.

Blayne, how is induction relevant to this arithmetic question? You use induction to prove a family of propositions indexed by the natural numbers, not to evaluate a single arithmetic expression. Actually you seem to be proving that (2k+1)(2k+1) = (2k+1)^2 for all k ... you don't need induction to tell you that.

I thought it was valid use of induction but I am mistaken.