Who's the smartest cunt on Jow Forums

...

one

The country in which the "÷" symbol is never used, or at least IF it is used with brackets to make it retard safe.

It's 1 (one). What did I win?

not me Im a highschool dropout

dum neegas

Attached: pemdas.png (1111x122, 15K)

Imagine not using fractions

this is a bait image and anyone who falls for it is a retard
there is no right answer since it's ambiguous whether you should do 6/2 first because of traditional order of operations or 2(1+2) because of the intuitive spacing

Since yall so good in maths, would you mind explain to me this identity?

Attached: P90507-224543(1).jpg (664x2048, 309K)

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

81=81 retard

What's Omega?

This, math is a game about notation guesswork. Problems have to be properly defined.

>bait
c'mon now

Nein Nein Nein Nein!!!!!

wat

1. everything between parenthesis
2. multiplication/division from left to right
3. add/sub from left to right

nothing more to it

It's the vorticity, the rotor of the velocity
_ _
(V x u)

problem is crearly defined dumbass

the 3 being parenthesis after the 2 and 1 added are probably throwing people off

Based German coming to rescue to Italian brother. Now you have to embrace your reputation and find him a solution - no cheating this is not about motors.

6 * 1/6 = 1

Attached: 1550338064407.png (894x773, 48K)

People who haven’t taken math in a long time also forget multiplication and division don’t hold priority over each other and instead relies on whatever is listed first in the problem.

Well it kinda is, you're helping a future Mechanical Engineer pass his fluidodynamics exam.

It's fucking 1

1, you multiply the 2 into the bracket before dividing

no, they probably never learned it right

The answer is 9

It's 9. No idea why so many people have issues with math. Currently in diff eq and it's all easy as fuck. You all need to get gud.

The term involving Omega is zero and the other term to the right side is what you have on the left just by applying the chain rule (I think).

Maybe I am retarded though.

9. Imagine, that 6/2(1+2) is 6*(1/2)(1+2).

>the ability to memorize the convention of how mathematical syntax work determine your intelligence
death to this meme already

Forgot pic.

Attached: IMG_20190507_230220.jpg (3024x4032, 3.17M)

A dozen, a gross, and a score, plus three times the square root of four,divided by seven,plus five times eleven,is nine squared and not a bit more.

Bout tree fiddy

>Currently in diff eq and it's all easy as fuck.
DE's really get as hard as you want them to be. Especially once you get beyond ODE's where even existence of solutions really becomes very involved.

BODMAS

6 / 2 ( 1 + 2 )

Solve brackets first.
(1+2) = 3

Then divide.
6/2 = 3

Then Multiply the remainder.
3 x 3 = 9

Answer is 9.

t. Brainlet

No, you.

It's 1 because the "division sign" isn't real. It's really 6 over 2 times 1 +2.

>the "division sign" isn't real

Attached: 432452346.jpg (900x457, 41K)

nine

Yeah, the reasoning why the second term is zero is wrong, but the conclusion should still be correct.

Another
>tf
>tp
Moment for me

I think no one really uses the ÷ symbol on equations to prevent confusion, cause it's pretty easy to lost yourself in little detail on big calculations, here I always see division on the fraction form, on equations.

>here I always see division on the fraction form, on equations.
Yeah, exactly. That is what pretty much everyone in the sciences uses, simply because it is always obvious what it means.

can you be more refugee than you already are?

9 or 1
Question is deliberately ambiguous by neglecting further brackets or using / instead of ÷

I could flee to Brazil from the dystopian hellhole I am living in, so I assume yes.

the set of possible correct answers is 9 and 1

>Not calculating in GF(3)
The answer is zero my dude.

less talented people has difficulty of "seeing through" the the patterns and conclude its simplest form.
i for example can't even comprehend most of the very basic derivatives such as x^x let alone adancing into ODE.
hell i remember i even struggle to conclude the simplest form of x^(y+c) summation without looking at the explanation. currently taking engineering degree and i think i'm doomed

You always go from left to right, when deciding whether you multiply or divide first.

The division sign comes first before the multiplication bracket.

It can't be 1.

Pinche gringo

i trust brahamas

6 / 2 * 3

1 obviously.

Attached: japanese dog.jpg (1147x1200, 444K)

1

Answering anything but 9 should automatically enlist you for euthanasia.

You follow the order of operations AND go left to right.

1st step 1+2 = 3
2nd step 6÷2 = 3
3rd step 3÷3 = 1

Attached: chloe lis.png (522x348, 199K)

9

no matter what board math threads always trigger someone

>tf
>tp

Please don't tell me what happened in you mind when you divided TWICE although there was exactly one division in the task.

>commiefornia
here

>3rd step 3÷3 = 1
>3(3) = 1
heres your reply

>two divisions
Beyond repair.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

I think I really do.
Explain why you are dividing TWICE.

On further thought, please don't explain.

I wrote it out in a way that doesn't make sense I guess.

Attached: mafs.png (192x62, 2K)

But you from right to left in step 3...

here

6/2 is the same as 6(1/2) ---> 6(1/2)(3) ----> (3)(3)

shit formatting fampai

NVM, I thought for some fucking reason to divide the parenthesized by the left number. I'm on a lot of painkillers after a tooth extraction rn.

Attached: 57070973_1104128539771352_1470891879288537088_n.jpg (229x220, 9K)

>the term involving omega is 0
Why?
Also i havent fully understood how the first term involving the gradient of the velocity squared could equal the first member of the equation

Since it's either 1 or 9, with both being equal in solutions so 50%-50%, it's (1+9)/2=5

OH MY GOD THE CHAIN RULE OFC WHY DIDNT I THINK ABOUT THAT
thank you so much, but i still cant understand why the second factor equals 0

6/2(1+2)

6
--
2(1+2)

6
--
2(3)

6
--
6

1

Or, on a single line, you can distribute the two into the parentheses.
6/2(1+2) = 6/(2+4) = 6/6 = 1

To get nine, I think you would need another set of parentheses to make it clear how to distribute it.

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

Without parentheses around (6/2) in the beginning, I think 2(1+2) must be implied as a single denominator to 6, since the 2 can be distributed.

Literally high school math

Attached: 1557261154552.jpg (1518x893, 65K)

LTR

Left to right applies, but remember 2(3) is technically still a parenthetical operation and not a multiplicative operation. With single terms it's a simple as 2*3, but it's still distribution of a term into a parenthesis, which takes precendent over the division on the leftside of the equation.

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

Only the equation INSIDE the ( ) has to be done first.

The (1+2) = (3) complete. The brack basically disappears.

It's just read as __ x 3 now.

Since it is a parenthesis, you can do the operations in it first, but if we replaced one of the digits with a variable, the notation would matter.

For example, if it was 6/2(x+2), would it become:

(6/2)x + (6/2)2

or

6/(2x+4)

So in other words, how you distribute to the parenthesis has to matter.

If you see it has 6/2 as the term to the distribute into the parenthesis, then it's (6/2)(1) + (6/2)(2) = 3 + 6 = 9.

But if you see the term to distribute into the parenthesis as only 2, then it's 6/2(1+2) = 6/(2+4) = 6/6 = 1.

In other words, the notation is completely ambiguous and both could be seen as correct, just as 1/2x could be seen as either 0.5x, or 1 over 2x. It's ambiguous and poor form.

If we wanted to remove the ambiguity, we would remove the division, since that makes what constitutes the denominator confusing.

So 6/2(1/2) could be written as as multiplication to get rid of the division as 6*(0.5)*(1+2) = 6*(0.5)*3 = 9.

IX

9

to the dumbfucks saying 1: After you solve the brackets, you need to compute everything from left to right

Wolfram Alpha says 9, though the logic behind it is fucked to me.

I'm retarded, evidently