• Vagabond
    link
    fedilink
    151 year ago

    8÷2(2+2) comes out to 16, not 1.

    Saw it posted on Instagram or Facebook or somewhere and all of the top comments were saying 1. Any comment saying 16 had tons of comments ironically telling that person to go back to first grade and calling them stupid.

    • @theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      311 year ago

      Let’s see.

      8÷2×(2+2) = 8÷2×4

      At this point, you solve it left to right because division and multiplication are on the same level. BODMAS and PEMDAS were created by teachers to make it easier to remember, but ultimately, they are on the same level, meaning you solve it left-to-right, so…

      8÷2×4 = 4×4 = 16.

      So yes, it does equal 16.

      • themeatbridge
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        Depends on whether you’re a computer or a mathematician.

        2(2+2) is equivalent to 2 x (2+2), but they are not equal. Using parenthesis implicitly groups the 2(2+2) as part of the paretheses function. A computer will convert 2(4) to 2 x 4 and evaluate the expression left to right, but this is not what it written. We learned in elementary school in the 90s that if you had a fancy calculator with parentheses, you could fool it because it didn’t know about implicit association. Your calculator doesn’t know the difference between 2 x (2+2) and 2(2+2), but mathematicians do.

        Of course, modern mathematicians work primarily in computers, where the legacy calculator functions have become standard and distinctions like this have become trivial.

          • themeatbridge
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            I’m old but I’m not that old.

            The author of that article makes the mistake of youth, that because things are different now that the change was sudden and universal. They can find evidence that things were different 100 years ago, but 50 years ago there were zero computers in classrooms, and 30 years ago a graphing calculator was considered advanced technology for an elementary age student. We were taught the old math because that is what our teachers were taught.

            Early calculators couldn’t (or didn’t) parse edge cases, so they would get this equation wrong. Somewhere along the way, it was decided that it would be easier to change how the equation was interpreted rather than reprogram every calculator on earth, which is a rational decision I think. But that doesn’t make the old way wrong, anymore than it makes cursive writing the wrong way to shape letters.

      • @Umbrias@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        -11 year ago

        Under pemdas divisor operators must literally be completed after multiplication. They are not of equal priority unless you restructure the problem to be of multiplication form, which requires making assumptions about the intent of the expression.

        • Okay, let me put it in other words: Pemdas and bodmas are bullshit. They are made up to help you memorise the order of operations. Multiplication and division are on the same level, so you do them linearly aka left to right.

          • @Umbrias@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Pemdas and bodmas are not bullshit, they are a standard to disambiguate expression communication. They are order of operations. Multiplication and division are not on the same level, they are distinct operations which form the identity when combined with a multiplication.

            Similarly, log(x) and e^x are not the same operation, but form identity when composited.

            Formulations of division in algebra allow it to be at the same priority as multiplication by restructuring it as multiplication, but that requires formulating the expression a particular way. The ÷ operator however is strictly division. That’s its purpose. It’s not a fantastic operator for common usage because of this.

            There are valid orders of operations, such as depmas which I just made up which would make the above expression extremely ambiguous. Completely mathematically valid, order of ops is an established convention, not mathematical fact.

    • nudny ekscentryk
      link
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And both you and people arguing that it’s 1 would be wrong.

      This problem is stated ambiguously and implied multiplication sign between 2 and ( is often interpreted as having priority. This is all matter of convention.

      • Vagabond
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        I see what you’re getting at but the issue isn’t really the assumed multiplication symbol and it’s priority. It’s the fact that when there is implicit multiplication present in an algebraic expression, and really best practice for any math above algebra, you should never use the ‘÷’ symbol. You need to represent the division as a numerator and denominator which gets rid of any ambiguity since the problem will explicitly show whether (2+2) is modifying the numerator or denominator. Honestly after 7th grade I can’t say I ever saw a ‘÷’ being used and I guess this is why.

        That said, I’ll die on a hill that this is 16.

        • @MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There is another example where the pemdas is even better covered than a simple parenthetical multiplication, but the answer there is the same: It’s the arbitrary syntax, not the math rules.

          You guys are both correct. It’s 16 and the problem is a syntax that implies a wrong order of operations. The syntax isn’t wrong, either, just implicative in your example and seemingly arbitrary in the other example I wish I remembered.

        • @taladar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          the assumed multiplication symbol and it’s priority.

          Precedence is the term usually used for this (at least anywhere where computers have to parse expressions)

      • @Umbrias@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        A matter of convention: true

        Unless you specify you aren’t using pemdas, that’s generally the assumed order of ops.

        This is not one of the ambiguous ones, but it’s certainly written to be. Multiplication does indeed have priority under pemdas.

    • @ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Math should be taught with postfix notation and this wouldn’t be an issue. It turns your expression into this.
      8 2 ÷ 2 2 + ×

    • Zoot
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Back in gradeschool I was always taught that in Pemdas, the parenthesis are assumed to be there in 8÷(2×(2+2)) where as 8÷2×(2+2) would be 16, 8÷2(2+2) is the above and equals 1.

      • Vagabond
        link
        fedilink
        161 year ago

        Not quite. It’s true you resolve what’s inside the parentheses first, giving you. 8÷2(4) or 8÷2x4.
        Now this is what gets most people. Even though Multiplication technically comes before Division the Acronym PEMDAS, that’s really just to make it sound correct phonetically. Really they have equal priority in the order of operations and the appropriate way to resolve the problem is to work from left to right solving each multiplication or division sign as you encounter them. Giving you 16. Same for addition and subtraction.

        So basically the true order of operations is:

        1. Work left to right solving anything inside parentheses
        2. Work left to right solving any exponentials
        3. Work left to right solving any multiplication or division
        4. Work left to right solving any addition or subtraction

        Source: Mechanical Engineering degree so an unfortunate amount of my life spent in math and physics classes.

        • Zoot
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Absolutely, its all seen as equal so it has to go left to right However as I said in the beginning the way I was taught atleast, is when you see 2(2+2) and not 2×(2+2) you assume that 2(2+2) actually means (2×(2+2 )) and so must do it together.

          • Vagabond
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ah sorry just realized what you were saying. I’ve never been taught that. Maybe it’s just a difference in teaching styles, but it shouldn’t be since it can actually change the outcome. The way I was always taught was if you see a number butted up against an expression in parentheses you assume there is a multiplication symbol there.

            So you were taught that 2(2+2) == (2(2+2))
            I was taught 2(2+2)==2*(2+2)

            Interesting difference though because again, assuming invisible parentheses can really change up how a problem is done.

            Edit: looks like theshatterstone54’s comment assumed a multiplication symbol as well.

          • @Zoop@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s basically what I was taught, too.

            Edit to add: Ha, I just realized how similar our usernames are. Neat! :)

        • @taladar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Basically the normal arithmetic operators are all left-associative which means if you have more than one you solve them left to right.

    • @Umbrias@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      -11 year ago

      Under normal interpretations of pemdas this is simply wrong, but it’s ok. Left to right only applies very last, meaning the divisor operator must literally come after 2(4).

      This isn’t really one of the ambiguous ones but it’s fair to consider it unclear.