(August 3, 2019 at 2:09 am)Grandizer Wrote: What is the correct answer to:

8 divided by 2(2+2)

Is it 1? Or is it 16?

At first, I said 1, but then I looked at it again and reckoned it's actually 16. But it could be 1, though ... huh?

Then I realized the trick here is that parenthesis, should we take care of that parenthesis first (and then have 1 as the answer), or should we treat it as a multiplication and hence the answer should be 16.

I think the answer has to be 16, but if so, then PEDMAS guideline would be a little misleading.

---

Ok, so here's why I think the answer is 16:

Before anything else, let's rephrase the problem a little so it's clearer what the answer should be later:

8 divided by 2 times (2 + 2)

First take care of parentheses:

8 divided by 2 times (4)

becomes

8 divided by 2 times 4

And then we have multiplication and division left, same level of precedence, so we start left to right

8 divided 2 = 4, and 4 times 4 = 16

Answer's clearly 42.

---

(August 3, 2019 at 6:58 am)no one Wrote: The answer is actually 42.

Great minds think alike.

(August 3, 2019 at 9:58 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: I will add a convention, when in doubt, mathematical notation takes precedence over descriptive notation.

“8 divided by 2(2+2)” is 8 divided by the quantity of (2(2+2))

Had it been intended for the division to have the same precedence as the multiplication, it should have given as “8 divided by 2 times (2X2)”

The descriptive notation is my error (due to limitations). In the original it's the division symbol.

(August 3, 2019 at 5:37 am)Little lunch Wrote: It's definitely blue and gold.

Correct answer, LOL

---

(August 3, 2019 at 2:09 am)Grandizer Wrote: What is the correct answer to:

8 divided by 2(2+2)

Is it 1? Or is it 16?

At first, I said 1, but then I looked at it again and reckoned it's actually 16. But it could be 1, though ... huh?

Then I realized the trick here is that parenthesis, should we take care of that parenthesis first (and then have 1 as the answer), or should we treat it as a multiplication and hence the answer should be 16.

I think the answer has to be 16, but if so, then PEDMAS guideline would be a little misleading.

What are you dividing the "8" by? You are claiming to divide the "8" by 0.5. Thus you are claiming that 2*(2+2)=0.5. Or 8 = 0.5. That is a stupid claim.

The divisor is 8. You can attempt to make the divisor equal 0.5 all you want. But it isn't.

The moronic trick is to break up the terms into pointless segments. Why write "8" as 2*(2 + 2)? That is 8 no matter how you slice it. And 8/8 is one. The only reason to write 8 as 2(2 + 2) is an intentional attempt to mislead in much the same way as I could mathematically prove that 2=1 using the same lame tactic.

This seems to impress some people. Why? I have no idea. Perhaps they are attempting to buy a seat at the intellectual table, I don't know.

(August 3, 2019 at 7:22 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(August 3, 2019 at 5:37 am)Little lunch Wrote: It's definitely blue and gold.

Correct answer, LOL

---

(August 3, 2019 at 2:09 am)Grandizer Wrote: What is the correct answer to:

8 divided by 2(2+2)

Is it 1? Or is it 16?

At first, I said 1, but then I looked at it again and reckoned it's actually 16. But it could be 1, though ... huh?

Then I realized the trick here is that parenthesis, should we take care of that parenthesis first (and then have 1 as the answer), or should we treat it as a multiplication and hence the answer should be 16.

I think the answer has to be 16, but if so, then PEDMAS guideline would be a little misleading.

What are you dividing the "8" by? You are claiming to divide the "8" by 0.5. Thus you are claiming that 2*(2+2)=0.5. Or 8 = 0.5. That is a stupid claim.

The divisor is 8. You can attempt to make the divisor equal 0.5 all you want. But it isn't.

The moronic trick is to break up the terms into pointless segments. Why write "8" as 2*(2 + 2)? That is 8 no matter how you slice it. And 8/8 is one. The only reason to write 8 as 2(2 + 2) is an intentional attempt to mislead in much the same way as I could mathematically prove that 2=1 using the same lame tactic.

This seems to impress some people. Why? I have no idea. Perhaps they are attempting to buy a seat at the intellectual table, I don't know.

Not sure where you're getting the 0.5 from? Perhaps you misunderstood the question?

And it's a typical school math problem. 8 is written as 2*(2+2) because that's what they do at school to quiz the student. And plus, it's not supposed to be grouped together to equal 8 anyway.

The issue is that, in this case, a lot of people are not following the modern PEMDAS rule properly and are treating the last three numbers as a quantity together. That is, by modern convention, wrong.

ETA: I see what you mean by the 0.5 bit. No, that's not how we're getting to 16. Read my OP again to see how we got there.

(August 3, 2019 at 8:00 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(August 3, 2019 at 7:22 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Correct answer, LOL

---

What are you dividing the "8" by? You are claiming to divide the "8" by 0.5. Thus you are claiming that 2*(2+2)=0.5. Or 8 = 0.5. That is a stupid claim.

The divisor is 8. You can attempt to make the divisor equal 0.5 all you want. But it isn't.

The moronic trick is to break up the terms into pointless segments. Why write "8" as 2*(2 + 2)? That is 8 no matter how you slice it. And 8/8 is one. The only reason to write 8 as 2(2 + 2) is an intentional attempt to mislead in much the same way as I could mathematically prove that 2=1 using the same lame tactic.

This seems to impress some people. Why? I have no idea. Perhaps they are attempting to buy a seat at the intellectual table, I don't know.

Not sure where you're getting the 0.5 from? Perhaps you misunderstood the question?

And it's a typical school math problem. 8 is written as 2*(2+2) because that's what they do at school to quiz the student. And plus, it's not supposed to be grouped together to equal 8 anyway.

The issue is that, in this case, a lot of people are not following the modern PEMDAS rule properly and are treating the last three numbers as a quantity together. That is, by modern convention, wrong.

ETA: I see what you mean by the 0.5 bit. No, that's not how we're getting to 16. Read my OP again to see how we got there.

Why would I read the wrong again? 8/0.5 = 16. Thus your divisor must perforce equal 0.5. Thus you are claiming that 2*(2 +2)=0.5. And that is idiotic.

In order to artificially create the "problem" you are artificially fucking up all normal math rules for no reason other than to invent the "problem" out of whole cloth.

If that is how you choose to waste your time it is nobody's problem but yours. All you are doing is moving numbers from below the line to above the line arbitrarily. In effect, you are claiming that one can say 1/2=2/1 and that is mere nonsense.

(August 4, 2019 at 1:26 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(August 3, 2019 at 8:00 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Not sure where you're getting the 0.5 from? Perhaps you misunderstood the question?

And it's a typical school math problem. 8 is written as 2*(2+2) because that's what they do at school to quiz the student. And plus, it's not supposed to be grouped together to equal 8 anyway.

The issue is that, in this case, a lot of people are not following the modern PEMDAS rule properly and are treating the last three numbers as a quantity together. That is, by modern convention, wrong.

ETA: I see what you mean by the 0.5 bit. No, that's not how we're getting to 16. Read my OP again to see how we got there.

Why would I read the wrong again? 8/0.5 = 16. Thus your divisor must perforce equal 0.5. Thus you are claiming that 2*(2 +2)=0.5. And that is idiotic.

In order to artificially create the "problem" you are artificially fucking up all normal math rules for no reason other than to invent the "problem" out of whole cloth.

If that is how you choose to waste your time it is nobody's problem but yours. All you are doing is moving numbers from below the line to above the line arbitrarily. In effect, you are claiming that one can say 1/2=2/1 and that is mere nonsense.

You're not paying attention. To get to 16, you don't divide 8 by the quantity of 2(2+2). What you do is divide 8 by 2 and then multiply the quotient of that by (2+2) to get 16.

Don't act all haughty about this. If you check it in some of the calculators the answer they give you is 16 because to do the PEMDAS rule right, you have to not group the last 3 numbers together. Otherwise you're adding an extra set of parentheses that is not in the original.

This isn't a "maths problem". It's a "maths communication problem". And in this case, the communication spins on very shallow conventions.

There wouldn't be a big issue if we decided to change the convention tomorrow and say that division now takes priority over multiplication. Changing that convention doesn't change division. It doesn't change multiplication. It doesn't change arithmetic. It doesn't change the mathematics at all. This isn't a matter of mathematics.

Who cares about the conventions we use to denote the original calculation? We might as well be arguing over whether the Earth is 93 million miles from the sun or whether it's actually 150 million kilometers from the sun.

(August 3, 2019 at 2:53 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Its not a math problem at all, its very simple 3rd graders math.
The real problem is that the equation is presented in an ambigious way. We have math symbols for a reason.

If the originator would have bothered to specify the problem, it wouldnt be a problem at all.

#1 8/(2*(2+2))=1
#2 8/2*(2+2)=16

Now, what was the original problem? #1 or #2?

The way I read it, it would have to be #1, then again, I first heard about this in an article, I don’t remember what it was, but it did end with a reminder that expressing simple arithmetic problems in such a needlessly ambiguous way is just fucking meaningless. Math doesn’t need trolls.

Edit: Found It

This is a simple duplication problem that non of you can see. 1 + 1 = 2, 2 + 2 = 4, 4 + 4 = 8 and 8 + 8 = 7, 16 + 16 = 32 (7 + 7 = 5) which is 5 and 5 + 5 = 1. So, the sequence 1,2,4,8,7,5 is infinite as long as there is no number higher than 9. I hate 10 because it is 1! What about 3,6,9? PLEASE tell me! Sorry, the answer to your question is 7--duh!

(August 9, 2019 at 6:16 pm)Haipule Wrote: This is a simple duplication problem that non of you can see. 1 + 1 = 2, 2 + 2 = 4, 4 + 4 = 8 and 8 + 8 = 7, 16 + 16 = 32 (7 + 7 = 5) which is 5 and 5 + 5 = 1. So, the sequence 1,2,4,8,7,5 is infinite as long as there is no number higher than 9. I hate 10 because it is 1! What about 3,6,9? PLEASE tell me! Sorry, the answer to your question is 7--duh!

(bold mine)

I think I've spotted part of your problem.

Boru