It looks trivial but it keeps going viral. What answer do you get when you calculate ? This question has reached every corner of social media, and has had millions of people respond with two common answers: and .
You might think one half of those people are right and the other half need to check their arithmetic. But it never plays out like that; respondents on both sides defend their answers with confidence. There have been no formal mathematical publications about the problem, but a growing number of mathematicians can explain what's going on: is not a well-defined expression.
Well-defined is an important term in maths. It essentially means that a certain input always yields the same output. All maths teachers agree that , and that . The extra parentheses (brackets) remove the ambiguity and those expressions are well-defined. Most other viral maths problems, such as (see here), are well-defined, with one correct answer and one (or more) common erroneous answer(s). But calculating the value of the expression is a matter of convention. Neither answer, nor , is wrong; it depends on what you learned from your maths teacher.
The order in which to perform mathematical operations is given by the various mnemonics PEMDAS, BODMAS, BIDMAS and BEDMAS:
- P (or B): first calculate the value of expressions inside any parentheses (brackets);
- E (or O or I): next calculate any exponents (orders/indices);
- MD (or DM): next carry out any multiplications and divisions, working from left to right;
- AS: and finally carry out any additions and subtractions, working from left to right.
Two slightly different interpretations of PEMDAS (or BODMAS, etc) have been taught around the world, and the PEMDAS Paradox highlights their difference. Both sides are substantially popular and there is currently no standard for the convention worldwide. So you can stop that Twitter discussion and rest assured that each of you might be correctly remembering what you were taught – it's just that you were taught differently.
The two sides
Mechanically, the people on the "9" side – such as in the most popular YouTube video on this question – tend to calculate , or perhaps they write it as . People on this side tend to say that can be replaced with at any time. It can be reduced down to that: the teaching that " is always interchangeable with " determines the PEMDAS Paradox's answer to be .
On the "1" side, some people calculate , while others point out the distributive property, . The driving principle on this side is that implied multiplication via juxtaposition takes priority. This has been taught in maths classrooms around the world and is also a stated convention in some programming contexts. So here, the teaching that " is always interchangeable with " determines the PEMDAS Paradox answer to be .
Mathematically, it's inconsistent to simultaneously believe that is interchangeable with and also that is interchangeable with . Because then it follows that via the arguments in the preceding paragraphs. Arriving at that contradiction is logical, simply illustrating that we can't have both answers. It also illuminates the fact that neither of those interpretations are inherent to PEMDAS. Both are subtle additional rules which decide what to do with syntax oddities such as , and so, accepting neither of them yields the formal mathematical conclusion that is not well-defined. This is also why you can't "correct" each other in a satisfying way: your methods are logically incompatible.
So the disagreement distills down to this: Does it feel like should always be interchangeable with ? Or does it feel like should always be interchangeable with ? You can't say both.
(Image from Quora)
In practice, many mathematicians and scientists respond to the problem by saying "unclear syntax, needs more parentheses", and explain why it's ambiguous, which is essentially the correct answer. An infamous picture shows two different Casio calculators side-by-side given the input and showing the two different answers. Though "syntax error" would arguably be the best answer a calculator should give for this problem, it's unsurprising that they try to reconcile the ambiguity, and that's ok. But for us humans, upon noting both conventions are followed by large slices of the world, we must conclude that is currently not well-defined.
Support for both sides
It's a fact that Google, Wolfram, and many pocket calculators give the answer of 9. Calculators' answers here are of course determined by their input methods. Calculators obviously aren't the best judges for the PEMDAS Paradox. They simply reflect the current disagreement on the problem: calculator programmers are largely aware of this exact problem and already know that it's not standardised worldwide, so if maths teachers all unified on an answer, then those programmers would follow.
Consider Wolfram Alpha, the website that provides an answer engine (like a search engine, but rather than provide links to webpages, it provides answers to queries, particularly maths queries). It interprets as , interprets as , and interprets as the line through the origin with slope one-third. All three are consistent with each other in a programming sense, but the latter two feel odd to many observers. Typically if someone jots down , they mean , and if they meant to say , they would have written .
In contrast, input into Wolfram Alpha and it yields the sinusoid , rather than the line through the origin with slope . This example deviates from the previous examples regarding the rule " is interchangeable with ", in favor of better capturing the obvious intent of the input. Wolfram is just an algorithm feebly trying to figure out the meaning of its sensory inputs. Kinda like our brains. Anyway, the input of gets interpreted as "six over cubed", so clearly Wolfram is not the authority on rectifying ugly syntax.
On the "1" side, a recent excellent video by Jenni Gorham, a maths tutor with a degree in Physics, explains several real-world examples supporting that interpretation. She points out numerous occasions in which scientists write to mean . Indeed, you'll find abundant examples of this in chemistry, physics and maths textbooks. Ms. Gorham and I have corresponded about the PEMDAS Paradox and she endorses formally calling the problem not well-defined, while also pointing out the need for a consensus convention for the sake of calculator programming. She argues the consensus answer should be 1 since the precedence of implied multiplication by juxtaposition has been the convention in most of the world in these formal contexts.
The big picture
It should be pointed out that conventions don't need to be unified. If two of my students argued over whether the least natural number is 0 or 1, I wouldn’t call either of them wrong, nor would I take issue with the lack of worldwide consensus on the matter. Wolfram knows the convention is split between two answers, and life goes on. If everyone who cares simply learns that the PEMDAS Paradox also has two popular answers (and thus itself is not a well-defined maths question), then that should be satisfactory.
Hopefully, after reading this article, it's satisfying to understand how a problem that looks so basic has uniquely lingered. In real life you should use more parentheses and avoid ambiguity. And hopefully it’s not too troubling that maths teachers worldwide appear to be split on this convention, as that’s not very rare and not really problematic, except maybe to calculator programmers.
For readers not fully satisfied with the depth of this article, perhaps my previous much longer paper won't disappoint. It goes further into detail justifying the formalities of the logical consistency of the two methods, as well as the problem's history and my experience with it.
About the author
David Linkletter is a graduate student working on a PhD in Pure Mathematics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in the USA. His research is in set theory - large cardinals. He also teaches undergraduate classes at UNLV; his favourite class to teach is Discrete Maths.
My Casio calculator shows 9 when I explicit write the * sign: 6/2*(1+2) and 1 when I write the same expression with implicit multiplication: 6/2(1+2). The first case the calculation is done from "left to right", the other from "right to left", hmm...
There is no ambiguity if you do your calculation from "left to right" whenever operations have the same "hierarchical power" which is the case for multiplication and division. That's the way I learned arithmetic; and thus I join the "9-people" :-)
Yes, there is no ambiguity if you (always) do your calculation from "left to right".
There is also no ambiguity if you always do multiplication before division.
You join the "9-people" because left to right has no ambiguity, but the other side has no ambiguity either.
The ambiguity arises when we have these two different rules or orders of operation and haven't agreed on which one we are going to use. It is 'ambiguous' because the writer of the expression could have meant two things and we have no way of knowing which one she/he meant.
So basically you have chosen your side arbitrarily like everyone else, unlike the actual mathematicians who had the correct answer by saying it's unclear or ambiguous.
No they didn't choose arbitrarily, no one is supposed to always multiply before divide. It is mentioned in the article or whatever that there are different variations of the pnemonic device that people use, such as PEMDAS, BODMAS, etc. Notice how the M and the D switch places? That's because in the case of multiplication and division, its supposed to go from left to right. 9 is right
Implied multiplication is different from explicit multiplication. It does not necessarily belong to the PEMDAS/BODMAS rules.
The article mentions that in the science textbooks a/bc means a/(bc) and this makes a lot of sense.
By using polish or reversed polish notation this problem just disappears. it really is just a problem of semantics / (mathematical) language; and by using such a notation the ambigity just goes. Here it is in RPN:
6 2 / 1 2 + * p
6 2 1 2 + * / p
There's a reason we don't use PN/RPN every day; most tend to think in terms of direct relationships between concepts, not a concept stack that relationships operate on. Parenthesis help us read LTR while allowing nested evaluation.
You and I should go to the beach.
beach you I ~and~ ~go~ ~should~
Dogs and cats are like brothers and sisters.
Dogs cats ~and~ brothers sisters ~and~ ~like~
Mathematics is similar. Even many PN programming languages, such as Clojure, provide alternatives for LTR evaluation.
(+ 2 (- 4 5)) can be written as (-> 4 (- 5) (+ 2))
I took an APL course in 1979 at the University of Florida with Dr. Ralph ("Rafe") Selfridge. That was my first exposure to RPN. Though at the time I was neither a mathematics nor a comp-sci student, I really enjoyed APL and RPN. The latter came in handy when I bought an HP-48SX in the mid-'80s for use in calculus and other math classes I decided to take. I wish that little device had died on me. I found calculating using RPN much more natural than I might have expected. I'm sure that Kenneth Iverson believed it to be a wise approach to mathematical notation when he developed APL as a way to write/do/communicate mathematics and then later when the APL computer language was given life by IBM.
As for problems like the one mentioned in this article, their exfoliation online really burns my butt: my answer is to not write mathematics that no one who intended to convey an unambiguous mathematical idea would EVER write. Grouping symbols don't exactly cost extra $$ to use. :)
"I wish that little device had died on me."
Did you mean to write "I wish that little device HADN'T died on me"?
Incredible article and very informative, I hope to see and read more from so talented and gifted a math genius. I agree with 9.
Divide by 2 or multiply with 0.5 is the same
This actually changes the whole problem, if you were to flip the original division sign to multiplication you also have to flip the original multiplication to division so the new problem is...
which in this case gives you one
The issue is that you need more parentheses.
This only holds true if you first assume that 2(2+1) is somehow “joined”. Which is where the entire argument lies.
If you make that presumption any mathematical tool would result in the answer being 1. However, I and anyone else in the “9 camp” would argue that 2(2+1) is no different to 2 * (2+1), and similarly that there is no difference between any of the following:
6 divide 2(2+1)
6 divide 2 * 3
6 * 3 divide 2
6 * (1/2) * 3
All of these are equivalent from my perspective, and the basis for that equivalence comes from the interpretation of
“Number divide number(bracket)” as interchangeable to
“number divide number times (bracket)”
Whereas people who support 1 as the answer would interpret it as
“number divide (number times (bracket))” which I would argue is not equivalent
6÷2 = 6×½.
6÷2(1+2) = 6×½(1+2).
The ambiguity is caused by people who prioritize implied multiplication over stated multiplication. So they are using PEiMDAS/BOiDMAS, not PEDMAS/BODMAS.
Under PEMDAS/BODMAS, implied multiplication is the same as multiplication, so:
6÷2(1+2) = 6÷2×(1+2) = 6×½(1+2), and the result of that is always 9.
Polish Notation, or even better, because it emphasizes somewhat the numbers, Reverse Polish Notation, is a delight, once gotten used to. The clutter of parentheses in computation is eliminated.
The expression 6÷ 2(1+2) is ill-formed if you want to apply PEMDAS. Consider 6/2 × (1+2). This is equally ill-formed for application of PEMDAS. Both symbols, ÷ and ×, have no context. However 6/(2(1+2))=1 has context for application of PEMDAS as does 6/2•(1+2) =9, where the dot, •, is an unambiguous separator between a rational multiplicand and a succeeding expression.
6/2 × (1+2) according to PEMDAS:
6/2 × 3
MD Multiplication/Division left to right:
3 × 3
For the love of God. There is only one problem here and it is not a paradox nor is it about juxtaposition.... The only issue here is the left to right rule, a complete violation of mathematical notation we force on kids in 5th grade which DISAPPEARS in 8th grade never to be used again. The whole confusion results from this crazy rule which should never exist in the first place (parentheses! Parentheses! Never ambiguity). It is stuck in a netherworld of half consciousness, in other words some people remember left to right rule and some don't. The only problem here is our math education system which is terribly flawed.
You can see all the details on my website:
why everyone hates math. com
How could we use brackets to avoid the ambiguity of a decimal expression like 1.2.3 (read out as "one point two point three)?
If the rule is that A.B means A+(B/10), then 1.(2.3) = 1+(2.3/10) = 1+(.23) 1.23
On the other hand (1.2).3 = 1.2+(3/10) = 1.2+(.3) = 1.5
Please do read the article before commenting on it!
There are two - equally correct- ways of understanding that expression, as the article points out. Restating one of them adds nothing.
In the Netherlands we learn that 12 / 3 * 2 = 8 because the rule they learned me is to divide and multiply in order of appearance. 13 - 7 + 2 = 8 and not 4 because we do it always by the rule add and subtract in order of appearance.
In order of appearance 6 / 2 (1 + 2 ) = 6 / 2 * 3 = 9 so the Casio fx-50 FH is right.
Why not rewrite the equation?
Doesn't matter how you write it, there is no ambiguity. You read and solve from left to right prioritizing according to operation rank. If you write 6/2(2+1)=6÷2×(2+1)=6÷2⋅(2+1)=
This article shows that without additional brackets, some people may chose to change the order of the operations. But choosing that approach doesn't make it true though...
We're not changing order of operations, the lack of parentheses means that we can use the distributive property to make it 6/(2+4) which simplifies to 6/6.
Distributive property serves no purpose here. There is no variable. The decision you are making is to see 2(1+2) as a set which means you are implying parenthesis where there are none, ie: you are implying complexity where there is none notated. If the author of the equation meant 6 ÷ (2(1+2)) they would (or should) have written it as so. Without implying complexity where none is noted the order of operations only allows for one answer: 9. That being said… it’s a poorly constructed function and that should be the real takeaway here. Math gives people the tools to be very clear of ones intention… better to use those tools and remove all possible ambiguity.
I don't understand why the distributive property is not used. Whether there are variables or constants, it should always come out the same. If we rewrite 6/2(2+1) as x/y(y+z), then distribute the y across the contents of the parentheses and come up with x/(yy+yz).
What you have done is ignored pemdas and skipped division. x/y(y+z) would have the division done first and then you distribute the result. So distribute x/y into (y+z) to get x+zx/y. You can still distribute but it must be in the right order. Substitute back in and you get 6+1*6/2 = 9
Why does distributive property go away if there isn't a variable?
What is if it was 6÷2x where x = 1+2? Is that 3x or 3/x? I think most people would assume the 2 and the x are attached to each other.
I agree with you and would go even further, using 2x/2x.
I think everyone with any sense of algebra would intuitively say that the answer is 1. (which then says implicit multiplication has priority over division).
Otherwise, if PEDMAS is followed to the law, we would end up with x^2 which i think very very very few people would arrive at.
The problem is that many people "glue" 2 and (2+1) together, treating it as a unity and in that way putting their relationship, in terms of priority, before the commonly accepted order of operation.
In other words, they don't treat it as:
' something...2*(2+1) ' ,
' something...[2*(2+1)] ' ,
which causes the problem here.
You can't just, out of nowhere, look at '2' and '(1+2)', ignoring the relationship in which '6' is with '2', and use left-distributive property here, because you go out of the order of operations.
I think it's commonly accepted that 'xy' means 'x*y' and should be treated as such, followed by treating operation of division and multiplication with equal priority, going from left to right.
If you assume otherwise and put the priority of multiplication, even with omitted * sign, before the other operations, then you are actually and indeed making a small mistake here, assuming something that is out of convention.
So, I think that '9' is indeed the correct answer and the other way of thinking IS NOT equivalent - maybe not in obvious way, but it's disregarding the order of operations and treats unmarked 'xy' multiplication not as 'x*y', but as '(x*y)' , discretely "adding brackets"!! :-)
It should be written like 6*(1+2)/2
People aren't "out of nowhere" gluing these together. Omitting the operator generally means that you should consider the multiplied numbers as one term. Let's change what's in the parentheses to simply "x". The problem now is 6 / 2x. Many people looking at this expression will consider 2x as one term. So they will read it as 6 / (2x), not (6/2)*x. That's the main reason why some people are in the 1-camp. No operator implies the multiplication already happened and should be taken as such as one term. Frankly it's a poorly written expression, as explained in the article.
Is 6÷2x or 6/2x where x=3 equal to 9 or 1? These are the same question. When there is a variable written like this most people attach it to the coefficient that directly proceeds it, and would consider it to be 6/(2x) or 1.
I have stopped teaching my students BEDMAS (or it's equivalents) as it is misleading in so many ways.
I now use GEMA.
One: I don't like the idea of a large MAS in someones BED!
Two: GEMA is such a lovely name.
Three: the DM (or MD) and the AS (or SA) misleads so many students.
M=Multiplication(and division is just inverse multiplication)
A= Addition (and subtraction is just inverse addition)
It is time we put PEDMAS, BIDMAS, BOMDAS, etc to BED and woke up with GEMA
I would argue that there is no answer because it is not written in any standardized form of mathematics. There is a reason why no math teacher on earth would accept this as an equation, it is ambiguous. Unlike languages that can over time due to the common use of a term or word by common people, see the Oxford dictionary's inclusion of slang like ain't, mathematical notation can only change by the agreement of scholars. Those that shout PEMAS as the answer need to learn math beyond the 4th grade. When math is used for a purpose, such as engineering, it needs to be clear and unambiguous. Proper notation allows for the identification of units of measure. We don't use "slang" math notation for a reason if it isn't agreed upon than it can become useless.
The way I see it, if there is no 'multiply' sign between the 2 and the (1+2), it acts just like if you were to have the expression 6/2x. Naturally, if x is replaced by (1+2), or (3), 2x=6, so the answer would be 1, as 6/6=1.
In my view, this entire article is unnecessary. Unless I'm wrong, you always solve within parenthesis first, then reset, so to speak, and go about the problem from the beginning, which in this case would place the mathematician back at the division portion. From there, you have a simple problem resembling 6/2*3=9. And you would solve it left to right to come up with the obvious answer that any online calculator I've tried comes up with; 9. Was this posted on April 1st as some elaborate joke? This is obviously 9, unless there are multiple versions of the rule of the order of operations.
Unfortunately, I see it as being unnecessary in the opposite direction. Unless we have given up on the distributive method, the only way to resolve the parentheses is to expand the multiplier of 2 across the contents of the parentheses. Putting a "6/" in front of 2(2+1) does not mean that the first 2 no longer gets distributed.
The entire term outside of parentheses needs to be distributed to use distributive property
I have spent 4 months arguing, (especially with Americans) over this matter, because they were taught differently, and in my opinion, wrongly.
At the crux of this matter are two principles that are ignored by many:
1. That multiplication is commutative, always.
2. That division is not commutative, and is only partly distributive.
Therefore, a rational person must ask themselves: when I find a math problem that involves both division and multiplication, how do I approach it, in order to retain the full power of the principles above?
Do I enter then shut the door, or do I shut the door then enter?
Do I reproduce then die, or do I die then reproduce?
That level of logic is what is missing.
Multiplication allows you (by commutation), to "walk in or out" as you wish. It allows you to "reproduce" early or late, for as long as you are alive. Once you divide, commutativity is lost (like death - reproduction is impossible afterwards).
Division, on the other hand, shuts the door; or is like the event of death. Once the door is shut, you cannot enter or leave. Once one is dead, they cannot reproduce!
How does this apply here?
Suppose we have 6 ÷ 2(2+1).
We cannot start with division, simply because it BLOCKS multiplication from being commutative.
You see, clearly, 2*(2+1) = (2+1)*2 and that MUST always remain valid and feasible. We cannot prefer or apply any method that denies this principle. This should be self explanatory.
Anyone who suggests anything that denies the commutativity of multiplication opposes math itself!
So, 6 ÷ 2(2+1) can only be resolved by safeguarding the commutativity of multiplication, before we "shut the door."
That is why 6 ÷ 2(3) = 6 ÷ 6 = 1, and not 9.
We cannot ever decide to die first, then start wondering whether reproduction is possible!
Multiplication is commutative. a * b = b * a. The problem is how you define your variables. You assume that a = 2 and b = 3, independently of the division. The reality is, a = 6 / 2 = 3 because of PEMDAS rules. Then you have 3 * 3 (a * b) = 3 * 3 (b * a) = 9.
You can't just ignore the division and do commutation on the multiplication by itself. There's no such thing as "shutting the door", whatever that means.
Parenthesis must be solved First according to PEDMAS.
Just change the rule to PEJMDAS and you can do left-to-right and *still* handle the Juxtaposition in the normally accepted (but not demanded) way (i.e. takes precedence over explicit multiply-divide)
Presumably PEJMDAS is then well-formed and avoids the annoying ambiguity, but i haven't looked for other corner cases.
For the life of me, I do not understand what happened to the distributive method of resolving parentheses. While I find the article at the top of this page to be very informative, and it does mention the distributive method, it fails to answer why so many people seem to have forgotten about it! I have had multiple people tell me it is only used when you have variables. This makes no sense as the equation comes out differently with variables versus constants. Whether it has constants or variables, the parentheses need to be expanded first, and this is only done with one method: (2*2)+(2*1)=6, then you can divide this resultant into 6.
Refreshing point. That is why old text books would evaluate the items on either side of the divide ahead of the divide - i'll be they were protecting the principle. I think I recall so, but it has been many decades but I think the principles were introduced just ahead of these kinds of examples. One of the videos on this says this was an out of vogue view. You make a great point
that it cannot be out of vogue, its essential.
Now I am really confused !!!
Hi David. I'm sure you reached a satisfactory conclusion and certainly don't intend to discuss this particular topic any further, but use it to move on. I do hope you read this as I note your research is in set theory and the title of your article here includes the word "paradox".
There's also a famous paradox in set theory known as the Russell paradox (and its equally famous "barber" version) and it's my contention that this too is really an order of operations of operations problem just like the one here, and could just as easily be resolved with brackets, conventions like PEMDAS, or some other order marker.
In fact this paradox has little to do specifically with sets at all. It works for just about any other subject-verb- object formation, for example: man-shave-man, set-belong to-set, dog-eat-dog, including those occasions when that object is the reflexive pronoun him-/her-/itself. I suggest that the confusion arises not with the nature of the grammatical subject but with the tense of that verb. It arises from failure to recognise that each successive appearance of the verb in the argument that sets out the paradox is logically, if not grammatically, a different tense and refers to a different time. The paradox disappears when we make that difference explicit, when we differentiate with respect to logical time. The barber shaves today all and only those people who didn't shave themselves yesterday, so if he didn't shave himself yesterday, he does today. The Russell set includes all and only those sets which didn't previously include themselves. So if it didn't include itself before it does now, but if it did before then it doesn't now.
In math when faced with the contradictory result arising from failure to put explicitly different relative times on the division, multiplication, and addition operations in an expression like 6 ÷ 2(1 + 2) = 4 we eventually find a way of nailing them down, so too with the operations of set inclusion and exclusion, or shaving and not shaving, or whatever.
There is a solid reason why some math problems take centuries to resolve: it is because simplistic people run away from the challenge.
Take a simple example: the area of a right triangle = ½bh or ½*b*h. Suppose it has basic side lengths 3, 4 & 5.
Irrespective of which is the base or height,
Area = ½*3*4 = 6.
So, given the Area (6) and one side (base), what is the other length (height)?
Area ÷ ½ * b = h.
Area ÷ ½ * h = b.
I am arguing that ½*b is one term, even without parentheses.
6 ÷ ½ * 3 = 4.
6 ÷ ½ * 4 = 3.
Professors, even from Harvard and Cambridge (UK) want to insist here that division "ranks equally with multiplication." It does not!
So, their 6 ÷ ½ * 3 = 36.
And their 6 ÷ ½ * 4 = 48.
"BECAUSE Google and WolframAlpha also said so!"
Men and women of the world, that is completely stupid. You know the area of a right triangle is settled math.
Why do you ignore your own brain, and trust robots? Computers are not perfect. They are less than 70 years old in combined developmental age. The human brain has at least 200 million years of arithmetic progress. Within this timeline, it has made these confused computers. Trust your head more.
The problem is that, given the final expression 6 ÷ ½ * 3 we don't really know where it came from. OF COURSE if we know is the result of calculating the area of a triangle we could maybe infer that ½ * 3 is half the length of a side or a height and then the only sensible thing to do is group that. But triangle areas are not the only subject we could arrive this expression from.
For example, let's take another super-basic mathematical calculation, the cross-multiplication, where you know that a couple of ratios are equal: a ÷ b = c ÷ d, and you must calculate one of the topmost variables, either a or c (direct cross-multiplication). For example:
a ÷ b * d = c
c ÷ d * b = a
Now we should conclude that a ÷ b and c ÷ d are one term, even without parentheses, right?
1 ÷ 2 * 6 = 3.
3 ÷ 6 * 2 = 1.
And therefore we would consider these other calculations (that use your logic of grouping the multiplication) nonsensical:
1 ÷ 2 * 6 = 1 ÷ 12.
3 ÷ 6 * 2 = 3 ÷ 12 = 1 ÷ 6.