DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Simple Math Equation....Right?

What is the answer to this simple math equation?

8 ÷ 2(2+2)

1

16

'Parentheses' order of operation only applies inside those parentheses. This is the generally accepted interpretation, and in my opinion the correct one. That said, not everyone agrees with this, so you might get some '1' or 'ambiguous' answers.

I will answer later. Hopefully, more people will try and answer this question.

16

16

Please show your work sir ...

I came up with 16 ... if you’d like me to show my work i’d be more than happy too .. i did it by memory and its been a long long long time since i’ve had to solve any type of equation ... so i could have used he wrong order to solve ....

We used different steps ... curious as to what your “order” was in solving the equation ....

I don't agree with Prp's order but I do understand it.

It's the old PEMDAS thing. You do stuff in parenthesis first, then exponents, then multiplication/division (same level), then addition/subtraction (also same level).

The question is whether or not the number outside of the parenthesis gets treated as part of the parenthesis. Generally accepted way is no it is not (and you get 16), but if you do consider it part of the parenthesis sequence, you get 1.

Vers could probably explain it with more precise terms. It's been a while for me.

Uuummmm, yeah, ok....

I like your football posts better.

That's funny, because I actually like his math posts better.

Just messing with ya, Vers.

Ok .. got it ... ty sir .. appreciate it ...

I started to show the work and then realized i prolly shouldn’t as others may want to answer ...

PEMDAS vs. BODMAS

Both 1 & 16 are correct. The way it is written is wrong.

I wouldn't say it is written wrong so much as that it would be needlessly confusing, if it were meant for something other than to promote discussion.

I have never considered the number outside to be included.. I always read it as

=8/2*(2+2) with the * implied.

I got 16...

=8/2(2+2) - Inside the ( ) first
=8/2*4 - Begin division/multiplication operations from left to right
=4*4
=16

Maybe not *wrong*, but absolutely ambiguous.... which, in mathematics, is tantamount to wrong.

Ambiguous in what sense? If you mean that people aren't always going to remember the order of operations and how to apply them, sure. I'm sure we all had to do a little double take.

If you mean by whether or not there's more than one correct answer, not really. Type it into Google, Bing, your favorite programming interpreter, WolframAlpha, whatever. The answer will always be 16.

I'd be tempted to say calculator as well but some very simple ones are not programmed to include order of operations, which is not very helpful.

In that it is not written in a manner to remove all ambiguity.

See: PEMDAS vs. BODMAS

Both 1 & 16 are correct.

Aren't PEMDAS and BODMAS basically the same thing, just worded differently? Brackets and orders instead of parentheses and exponents... how would using the BODMAS acronym give you 1 as the answer?

I said 1 initially but understand how 1ts 16 too

Because under BODMAS you would do the multiplication before the division whereas under PEMDAS you would do mutliplication/division from left to right.

Multiplication and division are on the same level, regardless of which acronym you use. This means multiplication and division are done left to right, with no preference given to either.



Why would you do multiplication before division in BODMAS anyway? (It's a moot point, as noted above, just thought I'd point it out.)

The eight is a numerator in a polynomial fraction. This requires that you use the quadratic formula to derive the denominator. The logarithm of 2(2+2) is equal to the convergent differential to the radius of pi and needs to be expressed as a parabolic sequence. You need to calculate the explicit progression of the square root of (2+2) and only then divide into the infinite geometric quotient. Take the parametric integral and calculate the cosine.

Carry the one.

I get 3.

And a half.

3 1/2.

You're welcome.

Three and a half sounds about right. Not to be confused with tree fiddy.

BODMAS


one of several articles out there explaining


**and I should clarify, you would do the multiplication before division in this case because of how/where it was written (Order)

That article is an excruciating read. I don't think the guy knows what he's talking about, and to say I have little faith in random Tweeters would be putting it kindly.

You can even see the source of the error in Anant @HumourouslyMe's work:


Bold doesn't even have to do anything with the order of multiplication/division. He's just applying the parenthesis order outside of said parenthesis.

Or maybe what you (and him) are saying is that O (order) means that you change the order of what goes on later on the list depending on some criteria? This would be strange. Order is just another category like exponents and square roots etc., which aren't even present in this equation.

Here's a good explanation: https://www.mathsisfun.com/operation-order-bodmas.html

The formatting doesn't carry over very well with copy & paste, unfortunately.

Here's a little bit of it:

How Do I Remember It All ... ? BODMAS !

B Brackets first
O Orders (i.e. Powers and Square Roots, etc.)
DM Division and Multiplication (left-to-right)
AS Addition and Subtraction (left-to-right)

Divide and Multiply rank equally (and go left to right).
Add and Subtract rank equally (and go left to right)

While I want to remain steadfast that both are correct, I find myself having to agree with you.

Is this the first time someone's mind has ever been changed on this site?

Yeah, I'm starting to understand why I struggled with upper-level calculus in college! It's still pretty ambiguous, but I'm starting to think that 1 might be the "right" answer.

The error comes down to people interpreting 8 / 2(4) like 8 / (2x), and since the they use a division sign that looks like a "+" sign, it looks even closer to a "8 + 2x" type of look to it, which would even further push you to do the parens multiplication first.

But even 8/2x would reduce to 4/x, right? Which would make 1 the right answer?

Haus is correct. Division or multiplication have the same "weight", so left to right, whichever one is first gets done first.

Arggh, actually, reading over my math again, I see why it's ambiguous, and I'm back to agreeing with purp. I was thinking Haus said "1" was right, but he said "16". But now I get what the problem is.

If you go strictly with the strict PEDMAS rule and were taught that Parens were the exact same thing as multiplication, you would read the equation as 8 / 2 * (2 + 2). In which you would divide 8 by 2 first, then multiply in the 4 after that to get 16.

If you've done a lot of higher level algebra, then 2(anything) gets interpreted as "2x", which takes preference over other operations. So, like I was saying in the previous post, if you had 8 / 2x, and then found that x = (2 + 2), you would end up writing it as 8 / 2(2 + 2) (which is exactly like the original equation) or as 2(4), and then that order would take preference. If you left it as an x, you would reduce the 8 / 2x fraction to 4 / 1x, which is basically reduced to 4 / x. And now you get your 4 / 4, which equals 1.

So I blame algebra.

I was with Ya Right up until I read the word "integral" instead of "integer", then I said
EH! He's full of something!

GC, My first response to this was

Am I even sure it's an equation? I don't think it is, but I dunno.

Ok, another answer.

Answer is "We all Win" , want me to show my work?

OK, political.

Okay. This was not an equation that I made up to mess w/you guys. There was an article about it. Folks were going crazy debating the answer. One guy said he had 2 Math degrees and the answer was 1. Another guy said he had 3 Math degrees and the answer was 16.

I thought it would be more interesting to debate it on the board rather than just post the article. I'm glad I did it that way because the discussion has been good.

I think Rocky's cousin posted in that original article. Instead of 3 and 1/2, this dude came up w/100. LOL

Let me know when you want me to post the link to the article. It's kinda interesting, but I like our discussion better.

alright, time to show my work,
(2+2)= TRUMP!!! ... if so
then 8/2= sounds like some dang democratic policy

Some dang democratic policy multiplied by TRUMP= Gridlock.

and Everybody knows, Gridlock means "We all Win."

Answer = "We all Win."

Math is, like, stupid.

I hate Math. I can do it, but I hate it. Maybe it's not the math so much as the way it is often taught/presented. Give me word problems. A bunch of random numbers and symbols thrown together and who cares?

I prefer words and stories. A complex equation without context doesn't speak to me. Not that that one is complex.

I think part of my distaste is the discipline's reductionist nature. Simplification is/was too big of a focus in my opinion. Some of my feeling that way is probably due to bleedover effect I see in other areas. People try to take complex, opinion-influenced scenarios and simplify them into binary options. It might also help instill the "one" "right" answer mentality.

Math for a purpose I'm good with, as it definitely has its uses. Math for the sake of math, I can do without.

Maybe we can start another thread for that topic because I totally disagree w/you. But, this thread was supposed to be fun.