Another Math Question

[Jack Reacheround]

Lol, literally just read this on yahoo...the article claimed both 16 and 1 could be correct...

Well, that article is fucking stupid and wrong. There is no way that is 16. There is a reason for the order of operations. And It’s the same reason the word cow can’t also mean duck. It’s because there is a common mathematical grammar so that everyone understands that the equation in the OP equals 1.

 

[rj144]

Well, that article is fucking stupid and wrong. There is no way that is 16. There is a reason for the order of operations. And It’s the same reason the word cow can’t also mean duck. It’s because there is a common mathematical grammar so that everyone understands that the equation in the OP equals 1.

Why is it necessarily 1?

It could very well, and should, be 16.

If it's written 8/(2*(2+2)), then it's clearly 1.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Doesn't matter the order of multiplication or division.

8 Divided by (2 times 4) = ...

8 divided by 8 = 1

equals the wrong answer

-------------

8 divided by 2 = 4...

4 times (2x 2) = 16 equals right answer

 

[Jack Reacheround]

To elaborate, everyone knows that if you want to express the number 16 by using the numbers in that equation, you do it like this:

(8/2) (2 + 2)

 

[rj144]

8 Divided by (2 times 4) = ...

8 divided by 8 =
1

equals the wrong answer

-------------

8 divided by 2 = 4...

4 times (2x 2) = 16 equals right answer

You put in an extra parenthesis. It's 8/2*(2+2) which should be read 8/2*4. It doesn't matter with this:

8/2*4 = 16

8*4/2 = 16

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Why is it necessarily 1?

It could very well, and should, be 16.

If it's written 8/(2*(2+2)), then it's clearly 1.

Because everyone understands the order of operations, just like everyone understands that the letters COW don’t make the sound “duck”.

 

[rj144]

To elaborate, everyone knows that if you want to express the number 16 by using the numbers in that equation, you do it like this:

(8/2) (2 + 2)

Either way, it's missing a set of parenthesis to make it clear.

 

[rj144]

Because everyone understands the order of operations, just like everyone understands that the letters COW don’t make the sound “duck”.

What would the order of operations be there?

 

[Jack Reacheround]

What would the order of operations be there?

The same as they are in every equation
P E M D A S
That said, the caveat is that when there are parentheses, you always distribute as part of the P. So you would distribute that

2 to the 2 + 2.

I know this because I didn’t think it was that way either and got a new asshole ripped in front of an entire macroeconomics class by the professor.

 

[Hans Gercmiov]

Doesn't matter the order of multiplication or division.

So then there are 2 solutions.

 

[MikeMcMann]

You put in an extra parenthesis. It's 8/2*(2+2) which should be read 8/2*4. It doesn't matter with this:

8/2*4 = 16

8*4/2 = 16

You said it doesn't matter the order.

So if you do the parenthesis first as you should and get 4...

And then if you throw the order out you have 3 digits left

an 8..

a 2...

and a 4...


between the 8 and the 2 is a division

between the 2 and the and the 4 is a multiplication...


If you do any order as you say and it does not matter then do the second digit, the 2 times the 3rd digit the 4. This gives you 8. Then go to the first digit and now do the division. You get 1.


You need to follow the order.

 

[rj144]

The same as they are in every equation
P E M D A S
That said, the caveat is that when there are parentheses, you always distribute as part of the P. So you would distribute that

2 to the 2 + 2.

I know this because I didn’t think it was that way either and got a new asshole ripped in front of an entire macroeconomics class by the professor.

You don't need to distribute. It's the same thing as 2*4 = 8. The first thing you do is the parenthesis which is equal to 4. Then, you have:

8/2 4 = ?

Without any parenthesis. With common notation a space or putting two variables back to back like xy means multiply. So, that becomes:

4*4 = 16.

 

[rj144]

You said it doesn't matter the order.

So if you do the parenthesis first as you should and get 4...

And then if you throw the order out you have 3 digits left

an 8..

a 2...

and a 4...


between the 8 and the 2 is a division

between the 2 and the and the 4 is a multiplication...


If you do any order as you say and it does not matter then do the second digit, the 2 times the 3rd digit the 4. This gives you 8. Then go to the first digit and now do the division. You get 1.


You need to follow the order.

Right, it's 8/2*4, which is equivalent to multiplying first 8*4 = 32 and then dividing by 2. Or dividing first 8/2 = 4 and multiplying by 4.

There is no parenthesis around the (2*4). That would dictate to multiply first since it's in a parenthesis.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

You don't need to distribute. It's the same thing as 2*4 = 8. The first thing you do is the parenthesis which is equal to 4. Then, you have:

8/2 4 = ?

Without any parenthesis. With common notation a space or putting to variables back to back like xy means multiply. So, that becomes:

4*4 = 16.

Yes, I know how you are reaching 16. That is not what I’m saying. It’s just that like language, there are certain mathematical conventions in place to avoid this kind of stuff. So everyone understands that if you wanted to express the number 16 this way, you would do it like

(8/2) (2 + 2)

Technically you could pronounce the word “bidet” as “bid-ett” but you wouldn’t because nobody would know wtf you meant.

There would be no point in expressing 16 like the equation above except to be a cunt. Kind of like the word bidet.

 

[MikeMcMann]

You don't need to distribute. It's the same thing as 2*4 = 8. The first thing you do is the parenthesis which is equal to 4. Then, you have:

8/2 4 = ?

Without any parenthesis. With common notation a space or putting to variables back to back like xy means multiply. So, that becomes:

4*4 = 16.

from yours above

8/2*4 =?

Now you say don't worry about the order so remove the 8 first and just solve for this

2*4=

(that equals 8)

Then put the 8 divides back

(8/ 8 = 1)


If you do not respect the order of operations you get 1 your way.

 

[rj144]

Yes, I know how you are reaching 16. That is not what I’m saying. It’s just that like language, there are certain mathematical conventions in place to avoid this kind of stuff. So everyone understands that if you wanted to express the number 16 this way, you would do it like

(8/2) (2 + 2)

Technically you could pronounce the word “bidet” as “bid-ett” but you wouldn’t because nobody would know wtf you meant.

There would be no point in expressing 16 like the equation above except to be a cunt. Kind of like the word bidet.

First off, the best way to answer this question is to say it's poorly written and ambiguous.

However, I would be much more inclined in saying it's 16 as opposed to 1. There is no convention here to dictate it's 1, trust me.

In order it to be 1, you HAVE to include an extra parenthesis, 8/(2*(2+2)), where as if you don't include anything extra, MOST would interpret it as 16 as in my last post.

 

[rj144]

from yours above

8/2*4 =?

Now you say don't worry about the order so remove the 8 first and just solve for this

2*4=

(that equals 8)

Then put the 8 divides back

(8/ 8 = 1)


If you do not respect the order of operations you get 1 your way.

Again, the only way to force it be 1 is to include an extra parenthesis. As it is, order of operations after simplifying the initial parenthesis does not matter.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

First off, the best way to answer this question is to say it's poorly written and ambiguous.

However, I would be much more inclined in saying it's 16 as opposed to 1. There is no convention here to dictate it's 1, trust me.

In order it to be 1, you HAVE to include an extra parenthesis, 8/(2*(2+2)), where as if you don't include anything extra, MOST would interpret it as 16 as in my last post.

Well then you need to go find my macro professor from years back and tear him a new asshole for me.

 

[rj144]

Well then you need to go find my macro professor from years back and tear him a new asshole for me.

Will do. A lot of non-science or math people think they know math, but don't.

 

[ocfightfan]

I understand how they reached that solution, but I've never heard of division before multiplication.

They are on equal footing in the order of operations, so when you have them together you go from left to right.