8÷2(2+2)

  • 67 Replies
  • 9248 Views
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #30 on: August 06, 2019, 03:53:14 PM »
Adding the symbol for multiplication doesn't change the problem.  There is no ambiguity.
No, it doesn't change the problem, and that's why there's ambiguity. It is both (8/2)(2+2) and 8(2(2+2)) depending on notation.

No it isn't.

It would only be the later if the it was marked with those extra parenthesis, which it isn't.
So when you see 8÷2x, you think 4x?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2019, 05:48:47 AM »
8 / (2x)

Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2019, 10:23:40 AM »
Since everyone here loves arguing

No we don't.
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

*

The Real Celine Dion

  • 4423
  • Use as directed
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #33 on: August 07, 2019, 11:03:56 AM »
You just got Weskered, bitches!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #34 on: August 07, 2019, 12:01:39 PM »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #36 on: August 07, 2019, 02:47:40 PM »
Adding the symbol for multiplication doesn't change the problem.  There is no ambiguity.
No, it doesn't change the problem, and that's why there's ambiguity. It is both (8/2)(2+2) and 8(2(2+2)) depending on notation.

No it isn't.

It would only be the later if the it was marked with those extra parenthesis, which it isn't.
So when you see 8÷2x, you think 4x?

Yes.  Again 2x is 2*x, as multiplication is implied.  Unless parenthesis are there making the problem 8÷(2x), it is multiplication division from left to right.



Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #37 on: August 07, 2019, 02:56:44 PM »
Adding the symbol for multiplication doesn't change the problem.  There is no ambiguity.
No, it doesn't change the problem, and that's why there's ambiguity. It is both (8/2)(2+2) and 8(2(2+2)) depending on notation.

No it isn't.

It would only be the later if the it was marked with those extra parenthesis, which it isn't.
So when you see 8÷2x, you think 4x?

Yes.  Again 2x is 2*x, as multiplication is implied.  Unless parenthesis are there making the problem 8÷(2x), it is multiplication division from left to right.
Multiplication is implied, but anyone with any experience dealing with unknowns takes each '2x' as a block, brackets unnecessary because the only reason they're not automatically combined is because the x is an indeterminate. It's taken as a single term.
Which kinda comes back to what boydster said; it isn't a formula that would ever actually normally arise. Anyone who would write it should already know the answer, so there's no need to leave it as such. This is just mix-and-matching notation from basic to experienced with the express goal of finding ambiguity. Yes, if you do it one specific way you're only going to get one answer, but there's a reason even just the '÷' is something you stop seeing when you do maths at a higher level. It is bad notation.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2019, 10:21:29 AM »
Since everyone here loves arguing

No we don't.
Then why are you here? ???


I keep saying that there is nothing like a good argument.  Sadly this place is nothing like a good argument.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

The Real Celine Dion

  • 4423
  • Use as directed
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #39 on: August 08, 2019, 10:45:34 AM »
Since everyone here loves arguing

No we don't.
Then why are you here? ???


I keep saying that there is nothing like a good argument.  Sadly this place is nothing like a good argument.

Nuh uh.
You just got Weskered, bitches!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #40 on: August 08, 2019, 11:13:51 AM »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2019, 07:32:56 PM »
8÷2(2+2) is designed to be ambiguous. Arguing over what the correct reading is, is futile. There isn't one.

There are, however, instances where determining how it is evaluated are not futile. The ambiguity of presenting the expression to a group of people and asking them to evaluate it is based on their understanding, choice, and memory of what rules to apply.

Present the same expression to a system designed to evaluate numerical or algebraic expressions, and the result will be consistent based on the rules the programmers chose to follow.

Wolfram parses 8÷2(2+2) as (8/2)*(2+2) and returns 16. Excel evaluates =8/2*(2+2) as 16. These systems don't throw up their hands and say "there's not an answer", they return one. It behooves the user to understand the rationale behind which answer. It may seem silly and trivial when using single digits, and the dictum to "just put parentheses around everything" an obvious solution. But when the single digits are replaced by variables, and the expression becomes a concatenation of longer parts, where placement of parentheses may not be obvious, knowing how your system is going to evaluate an expression is not futile.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #42 on: August 12, 2019, 01:07:05 AM »
But when the single digits are replaced by variables, and the expression becomes a concatenation of longer parts, where placement of parentheses may not be obvious, knowing how your system is going to evaluate an expression is not futile.
And when that happens, the mathematician writing it is actually going to be competent. This isn't about the value of bidmas/left-to-right reading or however you want to put it. When something like this actually gets written, it'll be done as a fraction; if anything this is an illustration of the value of how expressions actually get written. You don't have to patronise me when it comes to maths.
There seriously shouldn't be controversy to the point that this isn't a realistic expression, it's one designed to be misleading by slipping into the cracks between conventional understanding. Like. That's just what it is.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #43 on: August 14, 2019, 11:12:02 AM »
But when the single digits are replaced by variables, and the expression becomes a concatenation of longer parts, where placement of parentheses may not be obvious, knowing how your system is going to evaluate an expression is not futile.
And when that happens, the mathematician writing it is actually going to be competent. This isn't about the value of bidmas/left-to-right reading or however you want to put it. When something like this actually gets written, it'll be done as a fraction; if anything this is an illustration of the value of how expressions actually get written. You don't have to patronise me when it comes to maths.
There seriously shouldn't be controversy to the point that this isn't a realistic expression, it's one designed to be misleading by slipping into the cracks between conventional understanding. Like. That's just what it is.
That assumes it's being written by a mathematician.

I have professional experience in several industries where expression evaluation in data reduction is written by junior technicians. They are not always as careful as you assume every user is, and errors in interpreting what is intended versus what is evaluated do crop up.

Likewise, translating expressions from one mathematical evaluation system (or programming language) to another can produce similar errors if the method of expression evaluation is assumed to adhere to one set of rules, which it fails to do.

Yes, the expression is designed to be misleading by taking advantage of what people insist they know. Just like the puzzle of completing familiar quotations that everybody "knows" ("Water, water everywhere ..." or "Pride goeth before ... ") it is designed to point out that what you may think you know may not be correct. That does not mean that discussing the correct evaluation of it is futile.

*

Canary

  • 179
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #44 on: August 18, 2019, 03:17:47 PM »
i think it would be 1 because all the time we use multiple operation without (*) we operate phrases with multiple firs for example

8÷2m is always 8÷(2m) and not 4m. 

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #45 on: August 18, 2019, 03:48:51 PM »
i think it would be 1 because all the time we use multiple operation without (*) we operate phrases with multiple firs for example

8÷2m is always 8÷(2m) and not 4m.

The problem isn't 8÷2m

Stop if'ing the problem.  Read it how it is written.

8÷2(2+2) = 8÷2(4) = 8÷2*4 = 16
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #46 on: August 18, 2019, 04:03:04 PM »
i think it would be 1 because all the time we use multiple operation without (*) we operate phrases with multiple firs for example

8÷2m is always 8÷(2m) and not 4m.

The problem isn't 8÷2m

Stop if'ing the problem.  Read it how it is written.

8÷2(2+2) = 8÷2(4) = 8÷2*4 = 16

Let m = (2+2)... it's the same problem.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #47 on: August 18, 2019, 09:19:20 PM »
i think it would be 1 because all the time we use multiple operation without (*) we operate phrases with multiple firs for example

8÷2m is always 8÷(2m) and not 4m.

The problem isn't 8÷2m

Stop if'ing the problem.  Read it how it is written.

8÷2(2+2) = 8÷2(4) = 8÷2*4 = 16

Let m = (2+2)... it's the same problem.

Yes that is the same problem, but 8/2x is not the same as 8/(2x).

Saying that 8/2x is interpreted as 8/(2x) is BS.  Order of operations is Parenthesis (inside each set), Exponents, Multiplication/Division (Left to Right), Addition/Subtraction (Left to Right).  2(2+2) using order of operations is 2(4) which is just 2*4.  You cannot assume parenthesis are there.  If no parenthesis are there, you go from left to right.

Once a problem has been simplified, it's multiplication/division from left to right, then addition/subtraction left to right (if there is any).

2*2(2+2) = 2*2(4) = 2*2*4 = 4*4 = 16

8/2(1+1) = 8/2(2) = 8/2*2 = 4*2 = 8




Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2019, 04:32:19 AM »
But no sane person would ever write 8/2x when they mean to communicate (8/2)x. Because 8/2x is going to be almost universally understood by the reader to be eight divided by two-x. They'd either use parentheses or instead write it as 8x/2. I realize you are trying to play devil's advocate here, and I can appreciate that, but the reason the statement in the OP was written that way was either due to incompetence or, more likely, to use it as a "gotcha."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #49 on: August 19, 2019, 01:36:23 PM »
I remember taking a class in C programming and learning about pre and post incrementing operators ++x and x++.  That led to an interesting quiz question. 

X=1;
Y=2;
Z=X+++++Y;

No sane person would write that either, but it's a perfectly valid equation in C.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 01:37:54 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #50 on: August 20, 2019, 01:59:39 AM »
Excel knows:

Excel does not accept the XY format. It wants I convert formula 8/2(2+2) to 8/2*(2+2) then equals it to= 16.

1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #51 on: August 21, 2019, 08:21:18 AM »
Excel knows:
... It wants I convert formula 8/2(2+2) to 8/2*(2+2) then equals it to= 16.

No it doesn't. Quit lying.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #52 on: August 22, 2019, 08:29:59 AM »
Excel knows:
... It wants I convert formula 8/2(2+2) to 8/2*(2+2) then equals it to= 16.

No it doesn't. Quit lying.
"lying". lol.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #53 on: August 27, 2019, 11:19:09 AM »
Excel knows:
... It wants I convert formula 8/2(2+2) to 8/2*(2+2) then equals it to= 16.

No it doesn't. Quit lying.
"lying". lol.
Please show how Excel interprets the characters on the line below:
8/2*(2+2)

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #54 on: August 27, 2019, 06:24:10 PM »
But no sane person would ever write 8/2x when they mean to communicate (8/2)x. Because 8/2x is going to be almost universally understood by the reader to be eight divided by two-x. They'd either use parentheses or instead write it as 8x/2. I realize you are trying to play devil's advocate here, and I can appreciate that, but the reason the statement in the OP was written that way was either due to incompetence or, more likely, to use it as a "gotcha."

It is a Line Equation.

When a person writes 8/(2x) normally, it appears like the below:

   8
------
  2x



When writing an equation in a line, you must include appropriate parenthesis and brackets to notate specific order of operations.



Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #55 on: August 27, 2019, 09:27:10 PM »
Excel knows:
... It wants I convert formula 8/2(2+2) to 8/2*(2+2) then equals it to= 16.

No it doesn't. Quit lying.
"lying". lol.
Please show how Excel interprets the characters on the line below:
8/2*(2+2)
Have not you an excel? Lol. Ok, don't worry. Slow understanding a general illness around globalists.

1+2+3+...+∞= 1

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #56 on: August 27, 2019, 09:31:29 PM »
The answer is 7

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #57 on: August 27, 2019, 10:45:25 PM »
The answer is 7

How is it possible?  ???
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #58 on: August 27, 2019, 10:47:51 PM »
sorry, I meant 5.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« Reply #59 on: August 27, 2019, 11:47:33 PM »
1+2+3+...+∞= 1