The way the equation is written, the only possible answer is 9. Unless you're going to totally reconstruct the equation into:

6
-----
2(1+2)

The answer is 9. And even then, the answer is still 9, unless the fraction bar is acting as another set of parentheses(Which I doubt).

It isn't still 9
Lol...

You can't use order of operations in that form LOL
It's 6/6 = 1

This post was edited by 1nt0_3t3rn1ty on May 4 2011 04:21pm

How's that still 9?

How is:
6
-----
2(1+2) different from 6÷2(1+2)?

If the fraction bar is acting as a division symbol, the answer is 9. If the fraction bar is acting as both a division symbol and another set of parentheses, the answer is 1.



This is what I'm trying to explain to them. That is their entire argument.

This post was edited by Panic_Fails_at_Diablo on May 4 2011 04:22pm

Because when you use a fraction bar instead of a division bar you evaluate the denominator before diving the numerator by denominator, that is the problem with the equation because it can be interpreted either way.

That's just not right.

There is no difference between "a division bar and a fraction bar". They are the same.

(6/2)(1+2) and 6/(2(1+2)) are 2 ways of interpreting 6/2(1+2)
Because it is written incorrectly



But you don't use BEDMAS/PEMDAS when it's in that form
It's 6 divided by the bottom (which is 6)

It can't, really. It's a linear equation, not using a fraction bar. You just use the order of operations and get 9.



It's 110% correct.