# Add new comment

The COVID-19 emergency resulted in some amazing mathematical collaborations.

Here's a simple game at which a human can out-fox even the cleverest algorithm.

The INI is celebrating its 30th birthday. What is it and what is it do for maths and mathematicians?

Here's our coverage from the International Congress of Mathematicians 2022, including the Fields Medals and other prizes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the differences between us. Understanding these inequalities is crucial for this and future pandemics.

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*3)/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