6÷2(1+2)=?

your english comma seperation is invalid as there are 2 ways to do that sentece you wrote, and you only got one of them
valid sentences
The panda eats shoots, and leaves.
or
The panda eats shoots and leaves.
this is all depending on the kind of emphasis you want to put in the sentence, that comma only makes a subjective difference to the person reading, depending on how they make the sentence sound in their head due to enculturation, or it being from a specific person/character they have preconceived notions about
it would never be
The panda eats, shoots, and leaves
incorrect comma use

and i guess the answer is nine if you're supposed to do operations on the same level left to right

 

I think there are 3 ways.

The panda eats shoots and leaves (as in, it consumes the two nouns in question)

the panda eats shoots, and leaves (as in, the panda eats the particular kind of shoot in question, and then leaves the area)

the panda eats, shoots, and leaves (a panda consumes, fires weapons, and goes away... it's a strange panda but the grammar still works)

 

All this talk about Pandas eating, then shooting, then leaving is making me have strange images of the famous Godfather scene in which Al Pacino does the same thing. Except, he's a giant panda. ._.

 

hahaha, i've never seen it!

 

BODMAS people? the answers 1
where does 9 come from? you do the ones in brackets first (1+2)=(3)
then you do the multiplication of 2(3) because this is a bracket and so it goes first so 2(3)=6
then 6/6=1

 

The bracket rule applies to things INSIDE the bracket.

2(3) is simply 2x3.

Thus, 6/2 = 3. 3x3 = 9.

Actually, he was correct.

"The panda eats shoots, and leaves." This sentence is written with bad grammar, and that comma does not belong there in that context.

"The panda eats, shoots, and leaves." This sentence is correct. The panda eats somethings, shoots something, then leaves the room. Using "then" rather than "and" would be much better in this sentence, however.

"The panda eats shoots and leaves." The panda can/has eat/eaten bamboo shoots and leaves.

The more commonly known one is:

"A woman without her man is nothing" - It sounds very sexist like this.

“A woman, without her man, is nothing.” - Another way of making it sound sexist.

The women wrote: “A woman: Without her, man is nothing.” - Turn it around and make it sexist in the opposite way.

 

yes but when theres a number outside a bracket and you want to break the brackets then 2(3) changes to (2x3) because you times everything inside the bracket by the number outside the brackets, it's the same principle that quadratics work

 

there is nothing wrong with that sentence if you take it in the context of: the panda eats the particular kind of shoot in question, and then leaves the area.

it doesn't work that way. If there are no longer any mathematical operations contained within parentheses, they are removed: numbers and mathematical operations are never imported into them.

there's your problem

 

Hey, at least one person acknowledged your earlier posts and made commentary on them (multiplication by juxtaposition ranks higher than ordinary multiplication-i.e. get rid of parentheses first because they rate higher).

But yeah, too many people see a thread, go tl;dr, and then post. :rolle:

 

It's 9. Final Answer. Anyone who says it isn't needs to go back to school. Use the PEMDAS or BEDMAS.

Brackets/Parenthesis first: (1+2) = 3
Then divide second since there are no exponents, and also because you do what comes first and dividing comes before the multiplying. So 6/2 = 3

And THEN you do the multiplication last. So 3 x 3 = 9.

Done

 

Lol, now i see why he said "funny debates going on facebook"...xD

 

*Sits back with some popcorn and watches thread*

 

Nope, that's not right. That isn't how "and" works. "The panda eats" is an independent clause, but "leaves" is not. A comma would be necessary there if the sentence were "The panda eats shoots, and the panda leaves" because "the panda leaves" is an independent clause (it can stand on its own). As is, the comma is superfluous. If you want the panda to eat the shoot, then leave the area, the sentence would just be "The panda eats shoots and leaves." The problem with your sentence is that the comma effectively cuts off "and leaves" from the rest of the sentence, meaning there's no longer anything doing the leaving. You have the panda eating shoots, but the comma blocks the panda from the leaving event. This is why this sentence is grammatically wrong. It doesn't mean anything, since "leave" can't stand on its own. Basically, you only use a comma before "and" if you are listing or if it is connecting two independent clauses.

As for "The panda eats, shoots, and leaves," that's the Oxford comma, which is totally okay, and most English professors will tell you it's clearer. It isn't used in journalism, just because the AP Stylebook doesn't like it, but it's perfectly fine to use it (or not) anywhere else.

And yeah, won't say much about the math, but I remember specifically doing rows and rows of practice problems in seventh grade math so as to pound into our brains that the answer is definitively, and without any further question, NINE.

 

I say 9... If I'm wrong, then I've been doing math wrong my entire life xDD

I always knew it to be to take each expression at a time, starting with the parenthesis...

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

*shrugs* That's just the way I learned to do this kind of math~

 

i see. But doesn't that mean that there are two complete sentences which are identical right down to the punctuation, which have different meaning to each other?

"The panda eats shoots and leaves."

so this means: it eats shoots and leaves the area OR it eats the two nouns?

 

well done gents, we've gone from math to english.

 

Sometimes a comma is used to disambiguate between two ways to parse a sentence; normally it is used when the logical placement of the verb following a conjunction that follows a subordinate clause looks as if it *could* instead be within that clause rather than the main clause.

Compare
"I hate the people who hate me and loathe freedom."
with
"I hate the people who hate me, and loathe freedom."

The panda example is more unusual because it arises from not syntax but semantics; the distinction between
"The panda eats shoots and leaves."
and
"The panda eats shoots, and leaves."
exists only because both a noun and a verb are spelled "leaves" (even with the same pronunciation) and both would make sense, the former as a conjoined object of the verb "eats" and the latter as a verb conjoined with "eats."

 

i love you, you've renewed my faith in my beloved english language =D

 

I wonder if this is the kind of logic you use to destroy a robot?

 

Okay, yes, fair point. The language is very much moving toward this (and in all honesty, is probably already there), but it still isn't standard. I'm looking at 12 and 13, especially 13. Both of these examples have classic compound predicates: "hate...loathe" and "eats...leaves". Can't separate the verb phrases with a comma. To do so would be to separate the second part of the predicate ("loathe" or "leaves") from its subject, which is one of the more basic restrictions for comma use.
Now, again, none of this means what you're saying won't eventually be fine, but right now, it's not ideal.