Comments

@A Deformed Penis, so I looked it up because I agreed with your latter answer at first. But to derive 1 you would also have to assume the equation was written 6/(2(1+2))=1 which is an old but outdated legit way to read it. But today it is wrong because of Pemdas. So working it out 6/2(1+2) become 6/2x3. Pemdas states that m is of the same order of d therefore you work the problem from left to right. So 6/2x3=3x3=9.

Like last time this equation showed up, when there is a risk of misinterpreting, reduce it with parentheses. Either write it as (6/2)(1+2)=9 or 6/(2(1+2))=1, depending on what you were trying to model. It’s dangerous to assume people were taught the same method, or even remembered what they were supposed to learn. Most people, though, seem to remember that you work the stuff in the parentheses first.

The fundamental problem is twofold. 1, a misunderstanding of how the order of operations works, namely that multiplication/division is solved left to right at the same time. 2, a misuse of the distributive property. Since 6/2 is one term, the whole thing must be distributed over the parenthesis, thus making the simplified expression actually read (3+6) after distributing 6/2 to each term.
(6/2)(1+2)=9 6/2(1+2)=1 Of they meant to wire an equation for 9, then they needed to specify it.