8 / 2 (2 + 2) =

It’s 1 and I didn’t learn order of operations 100 years ago.

That some idiot screwed up coding a calculator and threw in an extra operator isn’t my problem.

Kids and their new math.
 
The confusion is generated by improper notation when writing the equation in text mode.

If only the 2 is below the fraction (which is normally the interpretation when coding math), then you have 8/2, which is 4, multiplied by the sum in the parathesis (always solved first), which is 4. So the answer is 16.

If you decide (incorrect in my opinion) to place both the 2 and the (2+2) under the fraction line, then you do get 8/8, which is 1. But that is an incorrect interpretation, because the text notation for that should be 8/[2(2+2)]
 
AV8R_87 said:
The confusion is generated by improper notation when writing the equation in text mode.

If only the 2 is below the fraction (which is normally the interpretation when coding math), then you have 8/2, which is 4, multiplied by the sum in the parathesis (always solved first), which is 4. So the answer is 16.

If you decide (incorrect in my opinion) to place both the 2 and the (2+2) under the fraction line, then you do get 8/8, which is 1. But that is an incorrect interpretation, because the text notation for that should be 8/[2(2+2)]
Click to expand...

True. Vague writing leads to confusion.

This issue vanishes altogether if you just use RPN like God intended. 8 enter 2 divide 2 enter 2 add multiply yields 16, as it should.
 
You 16 people are answering a different question

Write your own equation; don’t answer this one incorrectly and blame the question!

Yeeesh
 
Randomskylane said:
don’t answer this one incorrectly and blame the question!
Click to expand...
Then cite the rules you used to determine your way is the right way. Unless grouped by parathesis, multiplication and division operators only apply to the next term in the equation.
Are you going to claim that 8/2+2=2?
 
Racerx said:
Good lord what a stupid article.

Thats like saying 100 years ago the laws of physics were different than today.

That's some girl math right there.
Click to expand...

Lol it was the first link that came up when searching for the OP equation. These things are always stupid and written in a way to get different answers.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Then cite the rules you used to determine your way is the right way. Unless grouped by parathesis, multiplication and division operators only apply to the next term in the equation.
Are you going to claim that 8/2+2=2?
Click to expand...
No, that’s clearly wrong!

Anyway I’m going back to the real world now

Carry on
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
Lol it was the first link that came up when searching for the OP equation. These things are always stupid and written in a way to get different answers.
Click to expand...
No doubt. However, that doesn't mean the rules change just because of an ambiguous question
 
Sac Arrow said:
To me, the rules of precedence are clear and it should be 1. If you wanted it to be 16, it should be (8/2)(2+2).
Click to expand...
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).
 
Don’t even think about asking where the energizer bunnies battery was located in the commercials way back in the day….
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Man. The fact that there isn't 1 emergent consensus answer here makes me really want to double check y'alls W&B and XC fuel burn calculations :D
Click to expand...
I just look to see if the airplane is actually standing on its nose (CG about 2.5” from the end of the nose) or being sucked backwards by gravity (CG in the airplane behind it.) otherwise, the one I deal with is pretty forgiving.
 
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.
 
Salty said:
Math is a singular noun. Maths is a foreign word used when the speaker wants to appear silly and/or pretentious.
Click to expand...

I was making a very obscure reference to usenet days...
 
It's 1 using the SAE/inch-foot system and 16 using Metric.

Which is why the early lunar lander smashed into the moon at 1046MPS when it was supposed to be coming down at 0.313FPS. Freakin' Metric bastages.

edit: I think it's supposed to be "maths be hard". Meh, I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
I should ask some of you how many kilograms you weigh on the moon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top