8 / 2 (2 + 2) =

Some hospitals will weigh you in kilograms.
And going back to the original (sarcastic) comment, your weight on the moon will be six times less than on earth, but your mass will stay the same.
 
Nothing wrong with expressing material quantities in units of mass, in fact it's probably technically more accurate since it doesn't change with gravity. As long as you understand the difference between weight and mass.

I was going through a 172R manual, and in the weight and balance section, they give tables in both English and SI units. In the SI unit flight envelope table, the moment is given in kilogram meters. If one of my engineers ever gave me a calculation in kilogram meters, they would be fired on the spot.
 
Initial Fix said:
As shown it’s really unclear. Without brackets around the 2(2+2) it is 16. Assuming brackets it’s 1. I’ve seen this many times as an engineer where someone implies a math operation but does the math wrong anyway.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It doesn't have brackets or parathesis around 2(2+2). If it did have brackets it's a different question. In my opinion you cannot assume they meant to put brackets around 2(2+2). If you want the answer to be 1 the equation would be 8/(2(2+2)), but that is not what is written.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Some hospitals will weigh you in kilograms.
And going back to the original (sarcastic) comment, your weight on the moon will be six times less than on earth, but your mass will stay the same.
Click to expand...
But since we’re arguing about technically correct stuff, “six times less than,” say, 200 pounds would be a negative 1000 pounds. Did you mean “one sixth the weight on earth”? :devil:
 
luvflyin said:
The parentheses around 8/2 changes nothing. The answer is 16 with or without them.

The order is PEMDAS: Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, and Division (from left to right), Addition and Subtraction (from left to right).
Click to expand...
Agreed. I believe the lack of clarity results from the way it is notated. If it were written as:

8
______
2(2+2)

then the answer is obviously 1. The linear method of writing things out is where we run into issues. For instance, we write the fraction for 0.5 linearly as 1/2 even though technically it is

1
_
2
 
flyingpreacher said:
Agreed. I believe the lack of clarity results from the way it is notated. If it were written as:

8
______
2(2+2)

then the answer is obviously 1. The linear method of writing things out is where we run into issues. For instance, we write the fraction for 0.5 linearly as 1/2 even though technically it is

1
_
2
Click to expand...
The linear way of that is 8/(2(2+2))
 
Anyone with a computer programming background will have no problem with linear expression. Of course the OP formula won't evaluate in most languages because the multiplication operator is missing.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Anyone with a computer programming background will have no problem with linear expression. Of course the OP formula won't evaluate in most languages because the multiplication operator is missing.
Click to expand...
I dunno ‘bout programming because I ain’t a programmer other than playing with Basic many moons ago. But I do have a few elaborate Excel spreadsheets I’ve made. If I do sumpin like 2(blah blah) it says unable or something like that and offers up a suggestion like 2*(blah blah) will work. Don’t make no sense to me. I’d expect Excel to be smarter than that.
 
luvflyin said:
I dunno ‘bout programming because I ain’t a programmer other than playing with Basic many moons ago. But I do have a few elaborate Excel spreadsheets I’ve made. If I do sumpin like 2(blah blah) it says unable or something like that and offers up a suggestion like 2*(blah blah) will work. Don’t make no sense to me. I’d expect Excel to be smarter than that.
Click to expand...

as much as I dislike microcrap software, I will give excel a pass because software can't read minds.

(if it could, I'd want to use it to try to read a woman's mind)
 
Half Fast said:
So, an ERAU graduate!
Click to expand...
As an aside, they have a series of PPL prep videos. I am going to use one of them for a ground school segment I'm teaching in the spring on systems. The graphics are great and it really explains how an aircraft engine works.

The only problem is that they have the explanation of a carburetor venturi.... wrong.
 
flyingpreacher said:
Agreed. I believe the lack of clarity results from the way it is notated. If it were written as:

8
______
2(2+2)

then the answer is obviously 1. The linear method of writing things out is where we run into issues. For instance, we write the fraction for 0.5 linearly as 1/2 even though technically it is

1
_
2
Click to expand...
Eggzactly. Pretty sure Newton and Einstein didn't live under lean-tos. Why would they pick a slash when a roof was so easy to draw and clearly covered everything.
 
if you add in the correct operands the equation is 8 ÷ 2 × (2 + 2) which solves to 4 × 4 = 16

The ambiguity is the fault of the author. the addition of another parentheses or even just the explicit multiplication sign clears it all up
 
luvflyin said:
The linear way of that is 8/(2(2+2))
Click to expand...
Well, therein lies my point. Did the author intend for it to be the way you suggest (16), or did he merely fail to recognize that the linear inscription does not render the same as the “over-under” equation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top