Maths help
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
I don't recognise BODMAS or PEMDAS OR NAMBLA. None of those were ever taught in our schools.
Who says operation order is left to right? Nobody actually leaves that stuff ambiguous when writing formula. Who even writes "2 / 4 * 4" ? Nobody.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,167
- Location
- Europe
Ok, let's try Johansson then:
She can't even pronounce her name. It should be pronounce like yo-hansson, but she says Joe-hansson.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,763
- Location
- Auckland
0.99r = 1
Hey, GD, can you help me with my maths homework pls?
I see no question, just you asking for help.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 5,443
1... no ambiguity
The 2 multiplying the bracketed expression implies attachment to that expression... you would never do the 8/2 separately unless it was written (8 / 2)(2 + 2)...
Now, if it was written like this 8 / 2 x (2 + 2) that suggests 3 separate terms and would give 16, unless you clarified it with extra brackets e.g. 8 / (2 x (2+2)) implying 1 again...
Source: I am a Master of Mathematics
The 2 multiplying the bracketed expression implies attachment to that expression... you would never do the 8/2 separately unless it was written (8 / 2)(2 + 2)...
Now, if it was written like this 8 / 2 x (2 + 2) that suggests 3 separate terms and would give 16, unless you clarified it with extra brackets e.g. 8 / (2 x (2+2)) implying 1 again...
Source: I am a Master of Mathematics
Looks like it's gonna be @tamzzy vs @uncle_rufus
Left to right vs attached to brackets
Place your bets now
Left to right vs attached to brackets
Place your bets now
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 5,443
I think in practice nobody would ever write it the way it's written there anyway - it'd be either:
__8__
2(2+2)
or:
__8(2+2)__
2
(excuse the likely horrible job the forum does of formatting the above, hopefully it'll look right Edit: it's not great but not too bad)
__8__
2(2+2)
or:
__8(2+2)__
2
(excuse the likely horrible job the forum does of formatting the above, hopefully it'll look right Edit: it's not great but not too bad)
So, this isn't someones homework. I thought it was silly!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...n-dividing-the-internet/ar-AAFfILw?li=BBoPWjQ
Andi
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...n-dividing-the-internet/ar-AAFfILw?li=BBoPWjQ
Andi
All the people peddling "BODMAS" or the like (as an authoritative answer to this) can now hopefully stop doing so in future. As said, it's unsolvable.
Disappointed this didn't go on for pages unlike twitter... GD is immune to these by now
Are you serious? It's totally my homework!
No it isn't unsolvable. It is certainly designed to confuse, thus why it generates so many replies on twitter/social media etc... but it isn't unsolvable - there are two possible solutions available 16 and 1 which simply depend on conventions used.
Now if you have no other information/context about convention used then the sensible answer would be 16... that is just using "BODMAS" or whatever equivalent you want to cite, essentially the basic rules relating to the order of operations that pretty much everyone learns at school. The problem with a lot of the twitter argument is that people are misapplying this and seem to think the B in BODMAS or P in PEDMAS etc.. refers not just to the content of the brackets but the 2 adjacent to them too, this is obviously flawed as it would put this above exponents and generate some obvious contradictions. There is nothing in that order of operations they learned at school that allows for the answer of 1. So ostensible the vast majority of the population ought to be answering 16 if they were truly just using the basic convention/order of operations they'd been taught at school.
However there can of course be a convention used whereby implicit multiplication from the placement of the 2 immediately adjacent to the bracket takes a higher precedence over regular explicit multiplication or division, ergo the answer would then be 1. Thus the argument/confusion.
The thing is though that if you were to adopt a convention like that, then it would usually need to be specified in the paper/journal/book etc... and that isn't likely to be a thing these days as generally "maths stuff" can be written properly in LaTeX and doesn't need to be in a single line and use the "÷" or "/" operators. There were previously rather obvious useful reasons for adopting this convention if that was required.
Slightly different conventions with regards to the order of operations is however an issue for calculator manufacturers, programming languages etc... generally they don't seem to have added this additional convention and so you'll tend to see the answer 16 from the likes of google calculator and Wolfram alpha.
I'd therefore go with that, 16 doesn't require additional assumptions whereas 1 could be a legit answer if some additional context meant there was a convention of giving higher precedence to implied multiplication, without that then there is a reasonable argument that yes it is confusing but unless something is specified to give that higher priority then 16 is the solution.
Are you serious? It's totally my homework!
No it isn't unsolvable. It is certainly designed to confuse, thus why it generates so many replies on twitter/social media etc... but it isn't unsolvable - there are two possible solutions available 16 and 1 which simply depend on conventions used.
Now if you have no other information/context about convention used then the sensible answer would be 16... that is just using "BODMAS" or whatever equivalent you want to cite, essentially the basic rules relating to the order of operations that pretty much everyone learns at school. The problem with a lot of the twitter argument is that people are misapplying this and seem to think the B in BODMAS or P in PEDMAS etc.. refers not just to the content of the brackets but the 2 adjacent to them too, this is obviously flawed as it would put this above exponents and generate some obvious contradictions. There is nothing in that order of operations they learned at school that allows for the answer of 1. So ostensible the vast majority of the population ought to be answering 16 if they were truly just using the basic convention/order of operations they'd been taught at school.
However there can of course be a convention used whereby implicit multiplication from the placement of the 2 immediately adjacent to the bracket takes a higher precedence over regular explicit multiplication or division, ergo the answer would then be 1. Thus the argument/confusion.
The thing is though that if you were to adopt a convention like that, then it would usually need to be specified in the paper/journal/book etc... and that isn't likely to be a thing these days as generally "maths stuff" can be written properly in LaTeX and doesn't need to be in a single line and use the "÷" or "/" operators. There were previously rather obvious useful reasons for adopting this convention if that was required.
Slightly different conventions with regards to the order of operations is however an issue for calculator manufacturers, programming languages etc... generally they don't seem to have added this additional convention and so you'll tend to see the answer 16 from the likes of google calculator and Wolfram alpha.
I'd therefore go with that, 16 doesn't require additional assumptions whereas 1 could be a legit answer if some additional context meant there was a convention of giving higher precedence to implied multiplication, without that then there is a reasonable argument that yes it is confusing but unless something is specified to give that higher priority then 16 is the solution.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,763
- Location
- Auckland
Loving your work
Any better?
FWIW, I'm inclined to 1, if you replace the 2+2 with "X", then you resolve that first.
That said, I do see the argument for left to right resolution too.
At the end of the day though, the equation was written to be deliberately ambiguous so this would happen.
