CathyInBlue
Grandmaster
I, uh— Just realized that "6-2+2" is, in fact, equivalent to "6+(-2+2)", but for fundamentally different reasons. Allow me to modify the above passage into some semblance of relevance."6/2(2+1)" is the same as "6 ÷2 × (2+1)", would you agree? And by the same mechanism for ×÷ as you used for +- in turning "6-2+2" into "6+(-2)+2" that would become "6× 1/2 × (2+1)", yes? What you are trying to do is turn "6 ÷2 × (2+1)" into "6× 1/(2 × (2+1))", which is fundamentally and logicly identical to turning "6-2+2" into "6+(-2+2)". If you are not willing to assert that "6-2+2" is equivalent to "6+(-2+2)", why are you so adamant that "6/2(2+1)" is equivalent to "6/(2(2+1))"?
"6/2(2+1)" is the same as "6 ÷2 × (2+1)", would you agree? And by the same mechanism for ×÷ as you used for +- in turning "6-2+2" into "6+(-2)+2" that would become "6× 1/2 × (2+1)", yes? What you are trying to do is turn "6 ÷2 × (2+1)" into "6× 1/(2 × (2+1))", which is fundamentally and logicly identical to turning "6-2+2" into "6 + -(2+2)". If you are not willing to assert that "6-2+2" is equivalent to "6 + -(2+2)", why are you so adamant that "6/2(2+1)" is equivalent to "6/(2(2+1))"?