Your maths is shite. Where does that 4 come from?

The answer is either 9 or 1 depending on the rules you follow.
The more correct answer would be 9 just based on doing the brackets first and then carrying out the other calculations sequentially. Or if you follow BODMAS to a tee you get 1 because you do the brackets first and the the multiplication.

In the real world though BODMAS is a crock of shit anyway, because in excel its simple to add in extra brackets where needed to make things clear, and on paper you would use a horizontal line for division to clearly show what's being divided by what.

>>4832
>Or if you follow BODMAS to a tee you get 1 because you do the brackets first and the the multiplication.
How so? After the the bracketed term you have 6/2*3. Multiplication and division have equal precedence and are completed left to right.

>>4834
Also I forgot deletion isn't working properly and I think I just reported my own post, when I went to delete it to add a comment about OP getting that 4 now that I've realised they multiplied out the bracket first and then added it together, but whatever system you follow that's defeating the part of the purpose of using brackets.

Now I realise that I've been hooked by fucking clickbait.

You are all morons. The answer is obviously 5±4.

The answer is 1 and only 1. Everything else is idiotic.

Are you lot serious? You can't be this stupid.

>>4833
>BODMAS

The 2 besides the brackets are an "of". As >>4832 says, in the real world, you would have a 6, great big horizontal line and below the line 2(1+2) which is like saying 2 of (1+2).

Hence it becomes 6 over 6 and therefore 1 according to BODMAS.

Maths is fake.

The equation is written ambiguously for fucks sake.

>>4841
As said already, it's clickbait.

>>4841

>>4843

>>4844
Don't be a silly billy. Nobody would ever rewrite it like that.

>>4844
Are you trolling, or just that bad at maths?

If time = distance ÷ speed, what happens when you sit down?

>>4846
You tell me.

>>4848
6 is being divided by 2(1+2). Not just 2.

>>4849
But you've added an extra pair of brackets that weren't pictured in the OP. What is this thread and why are people pretending to be retarded?

>>4850
HP calculator to the rescue again.

>>4851
Huh, mine too. If you write the multiplication symbol explicitly it'll say 9. Clearly scientific calculators have additional grouping rules on top of BODMAS that most computer tools don't. I think programmer types will definitely parse it as 9 but if you've primarily used hardware calculators then sure, I guess.

>>4852 One of the (many) joys of Occam as a programming language was that there was no operator precedence. You put it all in brackets, or else you get the hose again.
Why should people have to remember arbitrary rules when you can just state things clearly? operator precedence is a fucking minefield. Witness this shitty thread.

>>4851
Sharp calculator is superior.

>>4854
I won't disagree with you. HP stopped making really great calculators about twenty years ago when they moved all the manufacturing to China. On the plus side, they are much cheaper now.

I have an ageing HP20S which is really good, it works fine, but the power button is gone so I have to hold a load of buttons down to get it alive and have to wait for it to time-out to switch off, so it eats batteries more than it did originally. Sad times.

The answer is 1. End of. No discussion allowed.

>>4855

Seeing as this thread has been necro-bumped, I'll mention that a) the HP Prime is damned cool apart from the weird viewing angles on the screen and b) SwissMicros make obsessively perfect re-creations of the classic HP calculators with modern components.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/HP-Prime-G2-Graphing-Calculator/dp/B07HF6RXGG

https://www.swissmicros.com/products

>>4884
> SwissMicros

Goodness me - thank you. I never knew about this.