Solve 6-1x0+2/2


Recommended Posts

I was always told that things were done in this order.

So:

6 - 1 x 0 + 2 / 2

6 - (1 x 0) + (2 / 2)

6 - 0 + 1

7

It irks me how people are getting this wrong all over facebook. I recall being taught this at the age of 14 (ish - working out where I was in school based upon where I remember sitting).

People are typing it directly as shown into a calculator, and swearing blind that they are right - because the calculator says so. I have 2 A-Levels in Mathetmatics (pure and statistics) and yet people with less than a GSCE wish to tell me I am wrong. FML!

Who cares if people get it right or wrong.

I, for one, care whether people are able to solve a very basic arithmetic problem. It's representative of the overall level of numeracy.

But yes, it should never be written in such a way.

  • Like 1

My faith in humanity is restored as most people here are getting it right :D

People that get 1 think that you solve it left to right.

People that get 3.5 think that you solve it left to right AND 5x0 = 5.

I don't really call people thick or anything like that, but if people post calling others thick they should be damn sure they're right in the first place :laugh:

it doesn't matter if you solve it left to right or right to left. Adding integers is most certainly a commutative operation

When I first saw this equation, it really irked me how it was setup. So I got it wrong at first. Then I remembered BODMAS. I maybe an old Jarhead, but my brain does still work without having orders from time to time. ;)

I get 7. I think order is multiplication, division, summation, subtraction. So 1x0 =0; 2/2 = 1; 6-0+1=7. But I could be completely wrong. In science and engineering, only an idiot would write out an equation like that. Scientist and Engineers strive to be specific as possible in their formulations and add parenthesis for clarity even when they aren't needed.

I was always told that things were done in this order.

So:

6 - 1 x 0 + 2 / 2

6 - (1 x 0) + (2 / 2)

6 - 0 + 1

7

It irks me how people are getting this wrong all over facebook. I recall being taught this at the age of 14 (ish - working out where I was in school based upon where I remember sitting).

People are typing it directly as shown into a calculator, and swearing blind that they are right - because the calculator says so. I have 2 A-Levels in Mathetmatics (pure and statistics) and yet people with less than a GSCE wish to tell me I am wrong. FML!

I don't mind people getting it wrong (so long as they're not accountants :p), just hate the cockiness of people saying "You need to go back to school" etc. when they're actually wrong.

Who cares if people get it right or wrong.

The matter of the fact is you'll never see such an equation in a book as it would be a terrible book.

Seeing equations wrote like this one anger me more than people who fail to answer it.

I don't care if people get it wrong, it's the attitude of people who insist they're right and everyone else is an idiot even though they did it completely wrong. Someone even said to me "Who the hell are you to say what the order of operations is" :laugh:

it doesn't matter if you solve it left to right or right to left. Adding integers is most certainly a commutative operation

By that I meant in the order that the sums appear. You need to do it in the BODMAS/PEMDAS order otherwise it's wrong.

It's 7. However, BODMAS and PEDMAS are both silly; Division is the inverse of multiplication (special rule for divide by 0, of course) and subtraction is the inverse of addition, so they have the same priority, so you're supposed to do stuff left to right in that case.

For example:

6 % 2 == 6 * (0.5) and

6 - 3 == 6 + -3

So, if you used PEDMAS on 6*2-3+5*2, you'd end up doing addition before subtraction, that is, (6*2)-(3+(5*2)) == -1, which is obviously not the same as 6*2-3+5*2 == (((6*2)-3)+(5*2)) == 19

It's 7. However, BODMAS and PEDMAS are both silly; Division is the inverse of multiplication (special rule for divide by 0, of course) and subtraction is the inverse of addition, so they have the same priority, so you're supposed to do stuff left to right in that case.

For example:

6 % 2 == 6 * (0.5) and

6 - 3 == 6 + -3

So, if you used PEDMAS on 6*2-3+5*2, you'd end up doing addition before subtraction, that is, (6*2)-(3+(5*2)) == -1, which is obviously not the same as 6*2-3+5*2 == (((6*2)-3)+(5*2)) == 19

No PEMDAS is not silly, it is a correct order of operation..

P Parentheses first

E Exponents (ie Powers and Square Roots, etc.)

MD Multiplication and Division (left-to-right)

AS Addition and Subtraction (left-to-right)

if you don't get the right answer following that, you are doing it wrong

It's 7. However, BODMAS and PEDMAS are both silly; Division is the inverse of multiplication (special rule for divide by 0, of course) and subtraction is the inverse of addition, so they have the same priority, so you're supposed to do stuff left to right in that case.

For example:

6 % 2 == 6 * (0.5) and

6 - 3 == 6 + -3

So, if you used PEDMAS on 6*2-3+5*2, you'd end up doing addition before subtraction, that is, (6*2)-(3+(5*2)) == -1, which is obviously not the same as 6*2-3+5*2 == (((6*2)-3)+(5*2)) == 19

No you wouldn't do addition before subtraction, that's only if you take the DMAS part too literally and don't understand the actual rules.

B

O

DM (left-to right)

AS (left-to-right)

is the correct order.

These types of open answer equations always make me rage at the stupidity of some people. Math is beautiful in that there is only one correct answer and if you don't have the correct answer, there is no explaining yourself. The idiots who sit there so assured of themselves with the wrong answer without a care just make me want to punch puppies.

No PEMDAS is not silly, it is a correct order of operation..

P Parentheses first

E Exponents (ie Powers and Square Roots, etc.)

MD Multiplication and Division (left-to-right)

AS Addition and Subtraction (left-to-right)

if you don't get the right answer following that, you are doing it wrong

No you wouldn't do addition before subtraction, that's only if you take the DMAS part too literally and don't understand the actual rules.

B

O

DM (left-to right)

AS (left-to-right)

is the correct order.

It's true that the order shouldn't be taken literally... but then again anyone who understands the logic really doesnt need PEDMAS or equivalent. Those who use PEDMAS (this thread is good proof) almost always seperate out Division before Multiplication and Addition before Subtraction. In fact I've seen it taught wrong so it's not very suprising so many people don't understand it.Luckily in this instance it works, but it would be interesting to give an equation that requires a thorough understanding of the order of operations.

It's true that the order shouldn't be taken literally... but then again anyone who understands the logic really doesnt need PEDMAS or equivalent. Those who use PEDMAS (this thread is good proof) almost always seperate out Division before Multiplication and Addition before Subtraction. In fact I've seen it taught wrong so it's not very suprising so many people don't understand it.Luckily in this instance it works, but it would be interesting to give an equation that requires a thorough understanding of the order of operations.

Well the fact that it has so many variants is a clue that the order of D/M and A/S isn't important :p

BIMDAS

PEMDAS

BODMAS

BIDMAS

PEDMAS

They're just acronyms used to help people remember the order. :p

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!