RE: Math problem that is driving the Internet crazy
August 3, 2019 at 8:00 pm
(This post was last modified: August 3, 2019 at 9:16 pm by GrandizerII.)
(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: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.
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.
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.