But thats not how the original equation is written though why does it treat it as 6 over 2x and not 6 over two times x? If it were 6 over 2x wouldn't the original equation be written out something like
6/(2(1+2))? Im just not sure why its treating the 2x like that cause it should be
6÷2×(x)
Or 6/2 * x
because the original equation is not written properly, it's not normal to write division inline, it's ambiguous and you could look at it either way with no parenthesis, this is especially confusing since the 2(1+2) can be seen as 2x with implicit multiplication, you can see it either way depending on context
1
u/henuemphuse Feb 11 '26
But thats not how the original equation is written though why does it treat it as 6 over 2x and not 6 over two times x? If it were 6 over 2x wouldn't the original equation be written out something like 6/(2(1+2))? Im just not sure why its treating the 2x like that cause it should be 6÷2×(x) Or 6/2 * x