[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 55 KB, 680x680, EAmCTOJXsAYqL4r.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15083651 No.15083651 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

/biz/ can't solve this

>> No.15083655


>> No.15083656

It's 1

>> No.15083658


>> No.15083660

Chink scam

>> No.15083663

bidmas shitmas
suck my dickmas

>> No.15083665

hur hur hur dur dur dur

>> No.15083683

bracket first


then division



>> No.15083721

Write it out as a fraction.

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

Denominators should be simplified before the whole expression is evaluated.

8/8 = 1

>> No.15083740

Or the price chainlink will hit tomorrow

>> No.15083746

the answer is 16
8/2x4 (division, before multiplication)

>> No.15083756
File: 18 KB, 472x198, 1561348444151.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]



It's 4/4

>> No.15083758


>> No.15083775

>The order of operations requires that all multiplication and division be performed first, going from left to right in the expression.
>from left to right
i cant fucking belive people cant do high school math on this board holy shit

>> No.15083786

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8%2F2(2%2B2) wolfram alpha agrees with us pajeet

>> No.15083789
File: 37 KB, 505x567, 1562875232468.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Holy shit how are people this retarded?

Division and multiplication are explicit. The divide by 2 is applied to the four as well you dumb mongrel.

[8x(2+2)]/2 = 16

For fuck sakes how are people this stupid.

>> No.15083809
File: 49 KB, 480x700, 47144759_2370737173000065_1698041854781554688_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

OR, you could distribute 2(2+2) first,

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

So did you all drop out before you finished 6th grade? How can you expect to "make it" without proficiency in basic arithmetic?????

>> No.15083818

>Brackets/Parentheses always come first and
lol suck my fat cock you fuckin loser

>> No.15083832
File: 25 KB, 384x480, 46112802_2312755525464066_8503937170501795840_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Not even written correctly.. there are 2 correct answers.

>> No.15083833

Fucking retard you’re open point validates that the answer is 16

>> No.15083857

the answer is 3

>> No.15083859

Only a nigger would write it this way.

>> No.15083865
File: 327 KB, 3724x2096, Explaining Math to Retards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

To make it even more simple, this is how you do it. People think this is a BEDMAS problem, you fucking idiots don't even know where the fuck BEDMAS came from.

The amount of smooth brain retardation in this thread and in general is insane.

>> No.15083869

This is why noone uses the division sign in algebra, because it confuses low-IQ neanderthals like you.
Where is the division sign in the equation?
Read it out for fucks sake:

8 ÷ 2(2+2)
8 divided by 2 times 2 plus 2.

>> No.15083878
File: 53 KB, 229x250, 1563981490853.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Not sure if youre larping or are you actually this retarded?

>> No.15083890

A sign of unintelligence is this type of anger. Not only is the retard wrong, but it is also aggressive. Note: dont be an aggressive retard.

>> No.15083895

Please excuse my dear aunt sally, you dumb niggers

>> No.15083896
File: 42 KB, 551x363, 1563985520428.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Refer to >>15083865
I made it into a simple multiplication problem so your smooth brain could comprehend.

>> No.15083898
File: 49 KB, 750x857, 1563585527909.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

holy fuck, i remember thinking like this in grade 2.

>> No.15083925

Everyone laugh at person who can't understand their own instructions >>15083878
The irony.. it fucking hurts. Why are the stupidest people also so aggressive in their incorrectness?

>> No.15083932

1 and the answer is link marines will make it

>> No.15083940

Stupid retard changes 2+2 to 2 × 2 and also displays massive incompetence and incorrectness in the entire understanding

>> No.15083950

8/8 = 1. No 1ers btfo

>> No.15083965

high iq bait

>> No.15083967
File: 1.45 MB, 1000x1000, 1563812698752.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15083974
File: 280 KB, 1080x1864, Screenshot_20190802-143329_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

AI will replace each of you and you will all be sterilized

>> No.15084001
File: 38 KB, 650x705, 1562870689929.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Commutative not explicit sorry.
Taking issue with a typo to cover up your inability to comprehend basic arithmetic

>> No.15084005

>what is sequential processing

>> No.15084007
File: 18 KB, 847x663, b4f3c5e11413cfdfc2b6b01b843f8699.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I think not!

>> No.15084025

Anyone who can't solve this is retarded
> 8÷2(2+2)
> 8÷2(4)
> 4(4)
> 16

>> No.15084032

write out like that ^

>> No.15084051

8/2 = 4
2+2 = 4
4*4 = 16
two easy

>> No.15084056

is PEMDAS not a thing anymore? i dont understand the confusion

>> No.15084067

Ok, let's subsitute (2+2) with x

= 4x

Now insert it

4(2+2) = 16

>> No.15084078
File: 22 KB, 598x283, Screenshot_2019-08-02 laur♏️ on Twitter pjmdolI i have 2 math degrees it’s 1 Twitter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

how many math degrees do you have?

>> No.15084090
File: 40 KB, 1200x1200, share.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

All heretics going against the will of wolfram alpha will burn in holy fire

>> No.15084092

Someone explain why this is wrong, I had an american education

>> No.15084123

This isn't a measure of logic skill, this is a measure of comprehension of a retarded notation which is why we will be replaced by computers

>> No.15084128

I am a pajeet, my people created math and we are the pioneers of math in the current age

My answer is 1. you canhave a different answer but your answer is wrong. There is only on etrue and correct answer to this equation and it's 1. if your answer is anything else then please, for the love of anything that's pure, consider KYS

>> No.15084135






>> No.15084140
File: 119 KB, 841x517, 1563481119501.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

PEMDAS brainlets, multiplication before devision

its 1

>> No.15084157
File: 209 KB, 701x785, 1561997027547.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

that's right. order in math operations if two opperators are equal then priority is from left to right so 16 is correct answer

>> No.15084165

A lot of special ed retards here never learned PEMDAS in 6th grade

>> No.15084169
File: 5 KB, 300x168, D408C9EB-7A62-4BE8-8190-629B2974535A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]



32 is the real result.
I will proof shortly and in 2020 i will CRASH mathematics into the ground.
If you dont get it i dont have time to convince you. Enjoy dyscalculus!

Also maybe i wont crash maths into the ground as i just threatened but the poor fucks that invested in mu logic. Cause i intend to sell my IQ and donate all of it to people totally not involved in this question. Stay poor!

>> No.15084172

is this some kind of javascript math?

>> No.15084176
File: 179 KB, 645x729, 1553751871703.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

No, you fucking retard. Order of operations is left to right.

It's 16. After solving the parenthesis, you divide then multiply.

>> No.15084181

It's not 4 times4. It's 4 devided by. Answer is 1

>> No.15084182

no wonder you need my people all around the world in the STEM fields. This world would go back at least 20 years if we pajeets decide to stay in our own country and work there

>> No.15084190

and here you are wrong my fren.


>> No.15084197

ahahahahahahahahahahahah I have a Masterd degree in engineering from the US bro. there is no way I can be wrong with such trivial algebra

>> No.15084198

No it's just for some reason retards think that the P in pemdas means you carry out the multiplication so they do it like this
> 8 ÷2(2+2)
> 8 ÷ 2(4)
Then for some reason they get retarded and think the 2(4) is for some reason significant and needs to get carried out, when at this point P is done in PEMDAS and you've simplified the equation to simple MD, which of course is solved from left to right. These retards finish like this
> 8÷8
> 1
When the x(x) is a simple symbol denoting simple multiplication, and NOT under rules of paranthesis of pemdas.

>> No.15084207


>> No.15084209

lol what a retarded bitch i have 11 math degrees get on my level bitch

>> No.15084219

A penis, and thus the capability of critical thought.

>> No.15084228

Doesnt matter what pemdas/bedmas
once the equation is 8/2x4, it then becomes a LEFT --> RIGHT equation. Meaning the answer is 16.

>> No.15084251
File: 35 KB, 500x512, 22549805_125564468070448_3032907008367616426_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Try to solve a harder problem!

>> No.15084256

It's 1. Resolving 2+2 doesn't make the parentheses disappear. You still need to multiply by the third 2 first to get rid of them.

>> No.15084265
File: 333 KB, 289x149, stahp.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15084283


>> No.15084288

It goes


Sorry you fell for the memes.

>> No.15084311

Look, it's one of the retards I described. No, x(x) is not P under Pemdas, it's M, not signifcant, and carried out from left to right.

>> No.15084314

This is not wrong. 0.999... is just a different notation than 1. Same as 1/3 equals 0.333... and 1/1 equals 0.9999

>> No.15084322

Technically 16 is correct yes, but writing it that way is just lazy. It really should be written like (8/2)(2+2).

>> No.15084329

1 and anyone who says otherwise is a filthy mutt

>> No.15084332

Lmao can even do basic math the absolute state of biz

>> No.15084351

(8/2)(2+2) is 16

8/2(2+2) is 1


>> No.15084393

Guys who get 16 out of it, arent you supposed to dissolve the bracket first ?

>> No.15084401
File: 9 KB, 300x300, 1527388023802.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You fucking idiots

>> No.15084412

Read the fucking thread. That inquiry has already been solved for you a couple of times

>> No.15084432

It's not done to be "lazy". It's done to trick biztards into getting 1.

>> No.15084447

I guess you're probably right. Thanks for teaching me something.

>> No.15084451

it obviously equals "?"

>> No.15084458

You DO dissolve the paranthesis, x(x) is NOT paranthesis, is multiplication. The goal of paranthesis or brackets is reducing them to a single value. You don't then carry out their function on the connected part of the equation, you just establish that value, get it reduced to a simple MD equation and go from left to right.

>> No.15084462

It's left to right either way bro, 8/2(4) is just like 8 / 2 * 4. You do multiplication and division at the same level so you do them in order from left to right.

>> No.15084488
File: 27 KB, 700x511, wtf3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

fuck division symbols

>> No.15084489

No problem, I'm glad to have opened your eyes to it, it seems to be the common mistake that people make to get it wrong.

>> No.15084494

google says it's 16
in truth 8/(2(2+2)) would be 1

>> No.15084496

TI84 calculator says 8/2(2+2) = 16.
Case closed.

>> No.15084530

16. My wife is a teacher lol
Told me PE MDAS. Parenthesis, exponents, multiple, divide, add, subtract. So 2+2 first. No exponent. Then you have to go from left to right for multiple divide add and subtract, so next step is 8/2, then you have 4x4 for 16.

>> No.15084533

But if you write it that way, your social media doesn't blow up

>> No.15084541

If your not adding parentheses to every seperate operation these days then your probably some lazy boomer accountant who never learned to program. Programming changed math, I don't blame biztards for getting it wrong since any sort of variable added into that equation could throw it way off without the brackets added in most languages.

>> No.15084559

Once the parentheses are gone, you do multiplication or division in the order they're written.

>> No.15084561

You could easily write it with the implied multiplication operation to make it obvious
> 8 ÷ 2 X (2+2)
> 8 ÷ 2 X 4
> 4 X 4

>> No.15084569

>my wife
nice larp

>> No.15084577

Nice projection

>> No.15084592
File: 8 KB, 552x468, math.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

it's not rocket science

>> No.15084605
File: 6 KB, 320x240, 1529920542704.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15084606


>> No.15084618


>> No.15084668

>Cites order of operations
>Ignores first two orders

>> No.15084670

The answer is 1
8 / 2(2+2)
8 / 2(4)
8 / 8

You multiply 2(4) before division because it's still considered part of the bracket.

>> No.15084681

human maths obeys the rules of nature because their consciousness is a result of their senses, which are in fact, fake compared to the true nature of reality

in that regard, 2 is not 2, 2 is a varying number that depends on the moment the question is asked, 2 might actually be slightly less during this instant the thought is formed and deformed in the mind of the person who sees the question, according to the new quantum theory of probabilistic waves

so the answer of this is a unique number that needs to be unique and factorized to the way space time is arranged at the moment the question is asked first, and the moment the question is visualized by a particular brain also, and each conscious entity will generate a unique valid factorized answer to this question

>> No.15084686
File: 906 KB, 2544x4000, 1482029619030.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Currently pissing self

>> No.15084690
File: 229 KB, 627x720, 1485680775761.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>You multiply 2(4) before division because it's still considered part of the bracket
This is wrong, 2(4) is the same as 2 x 4, just notated differently
Are you guys trolling or did the education system really fail you this badly?

>> No.15084735
File: 188 KB, 1300x2000, 23626742.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15084783

No, the 2 is still a function of the bracket.

>> No.15084800

i know dude

>> No.15084804
File: 17 KB, 204x223, 321341234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15084859
File: 59 KB, 424x693, 6111F86C-0D43-47B0-A080-A115DB0819E2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

ITT: Common core cucked zoomed not realizing its 1

>> No.15084865

the bracket is gone after you add 2+2

>> No.15084875


>> No.15084884

This is a good method of highlighting the dunning kreuger effect within /biz/
Take note of the arrogance and insults hurled by those who think they are right despite having multiple proofs showing that they are wrong. These are the people that call you brainlets and idiots in your investment threads. Keep this in mind in the future and trust your own knowledge and instincts when choosing to back crypto or invest in other opportunities.

>> No.15084912

>tfw I've been on the internet long enough to see this kind of meme rise and fall many times over
>tfw have seen all the same arguments itt already and knew the answer to the question the second I saw it

Is this my fate? To watch the same old meme cycles be repeated ad infinitum by naive and enthusiastic newfags?

>> No.15084922

The 8 is divded by everything to the right of it and represents the only number in the numerator. Everything to the right of the division symbol is in the denominator.

Everything is divded by 8 you fucking brainlets.

8 / 8 = 1

The answer is 1. You fucking zoomers and your common core.

>> No.15084937

This. Absolutely pathetic lmfao

>> No.15084951

>You multiply 2(4) before division because it's still considered part of the bracket.
not with that notation no

>> No.15084957

>/biz/ trying to explain math
the answer is ? you stupids

>> No.15084959

American Common Core needs to be burned to the ground.

>> No.15084978

not buying your shitcoin bags pajeet.

>> No.15084996

Somehow you actually succeeded in making it more obvious and still failed to get the correct answer.
I'm impressed.

>> No.15085023
File: 3 KB, 464x154, simple.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

this is ridiculus

>> No.15085041

answer is 6 brainlets

>> No.15085052

The problem is written incorrectly. It is non-deterministic and therefore has no single correct answer.

>> No.15085057

That's the correct answer you pathetic idiotic mongoloid abscess-brained involuntarily celibate fucking retarded moronic piece of tranny shit

>> No.15085094


>> No.15085095


>> No.15085097

Jesus, multiplication and division have the same hierarchy but are resolved from left to right, its 16 you absolute retards.

>> No.15085104

If this were true it would look like this:
>8 / (2(2+2))

>> No.15085116

>distributive property
2+4= 6

>> No.15085117

he doesn't know how to get rid of the brackets
it is 2(2+2)=(2*2)+(2*2)=8

>> No.15085120

That fool just roasted himself LMAO

>> No.15085127

The only correct answer is 1 obviously. So easy too

>> No.15085143


Jezus fucking christ wat

>> No.15085192

It's one you dumb zoomers

>> No.15085199

where you made the mistake is

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

>> No.15085204

My answer was 1. But that's why I'm crypto rich. I can't even do basic algebra. Spent most of my highschool shitposting and looking up get rich quick shit like Bitcoin back then lmao

>> No.15085231

Still wrong. Keep seething.

>> No.15085255
File: 439 KB, 500x500, 1563475077777.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

is it 1k eoy?

>> No.15085256

fuking reterd can't even put the right sing in fuctard ther is a diferenc between fracture and divide

>> No.15085266

blockchain n oracles technology huh

>> No.15085299

He literally says that 16 is the correct answer according to modern math

>> No.15085339

a/b = a*1/b
a/b*c = a*1/b*c = a*c/b

>> No.15085347

incorrect retard

>> No.15085363

No one is talking about brackets. Do you even read what I wrote? I know its brackets first, but your mistake os thinking division has priority over multiplication, which is not.

>> No.15085364


>> No.15085395

Hahaha there we go. I somehow was reading all of your comments as if you were saying the answer was one. Including the guy who broke it down. I got mixed up, my bad.
Yeah, I absolutely think the answer is 16 (else it would be written 8 / 2(2+2))

Talk about a true blue brainlet moment on my part.

>> No.15085396

fucking murica fag education all fuctards

>> No.15085416

it's not about priority or order (these things are for little kids) simply about how you define you algebra

a÷b = a/b = a×1/b if you understand this you can do it in any order you like.
÷2 literally means ×1/2

>> No.15085417



>> No.15085421

Haha I don't know how I managed to read your answer as 1 initially, but I did. Yeah, your breakdown is the correct way to do it and 16 is the answer.

>> No.15085434


>> No.15085446
File: 3 KB, 241x209, 1558298347225.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

HOLY FUCK LOL JUST LOL. Every time /biz/ has an IQ thread, all the /biz/lets come, proclaiming their 130+ IQ yet you can't even use fucking PEDMAS properly (addition and substraction are on the same level and multiplication and division are on the same level)

= 8/2*4
now go from left to right:

God /biz/lets are so fucking retarded

>> No.15085450

AGAIN you are not reading what I wrote. Listen, I know division is the reverse of multiplication. Just literally Google the order, when you have a multiplicacion and a division, you simply resolve from left to right, Google it

>> No.15085469

This is simply not true, Google it

>> No.15085501

Its 8/2(4) not 8/2*4

Solve the bracket and it's 8/8

>> No.15085514


Multiplication and division are on the same level, retard. I thought /biz/ was supposed to be full of 130 IQ chads in software engineering

>> No.15085517

fucking childish bullshit if you ask me. and will not take people closer to understand anything. for 8 year olds it's explanation enough.

>> No.15085520

Is this a generational change in how notation is read? It’s obviously 1, but have the zoomers been taught to read notation differently than us?

>> No.15085523

you can't do that you can only solve the bracket with 8/2 not 2

>> No.15085526

1)solve bracket first: (2+2)=4

Now you're left with

2) Now go left to right since multiplication and division are on the same level (PEDMAS with + and - on the same level and x and / on the same level)

8/2*4 = 4*4=16

>> No.15085538



>> No.15085539

The leftmost is the object's you have. Calculations to the right of it are what you are doing to those objects.

>> No.15085542

I think the answer is actually 146

>> No.15085544

holy shit you are super retired.

talking about putting the right sign

>> No.15085553

so... if i do (2+2)/2*8 then i will not arrive to the right result? fucking bullshit.

>> No.15085558


Its 2(4) not 2*4 jeezus christ almighty

>> No.15085564

How many retarded bitches in here thinking it's anything other than 1....

>> No.15085581

I was always suspicious that common core was an attempt to make math inscrutable to earlier generations, so that kids with parents couldn’t help them study and outperform single parent households. Confusion on notation like this thread seems to be the end result.

>> No.15085582

It's generational as in nobody is dumb enough to put an un-bracketed statement anymore now that your required to pass algebra to graduate and programming is widespread. (8/2)(2+2) is how you would write this if your not trying to bait millenials

>> No.15085584

That's the same thing you stupid fucking retard. Holy shit /biz/lets are so stupid.

You solve what's in the brackets first and you get 4. Now it's 2(40 = 2*4. The 2 is not in the brackets.

>> No.15085589
File: 10 KB, 238x212, yZbB78BCDQ6hw1YsY1cHC5jC4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]



>> No.15085597


The 2(4) needs to be solved first thus making it 8/8 seeth more

>> No.15085599


2(4) = 2*4

You always solve in the parenthesis first

>> No.15085608

Obviously. But since it used a division sign without brackets it’s natural to assume “divided by” refers to everything to the right of the symbol. Maybe it’s the emergence of wolfram that has changed how people read context clues in unclear notation.

>> No.15085610

÷2 is the equivalent of ×0.5
after that you can do whatever the fuck you want order wise because multiplication will allow you to do them in any order.

>> No.15085611
File: 43 KB, 960x960, 1560891686440.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You're trolling right?

Division and multiplication are on the same level so now you just have to go left to right.

8/2*4 = 4*4 = 16

>> No.15085613

Division and multiplication are the same in the order of operations

I'm a highschool dropout and even I remember that shit from the 2 days I spent in math class before I ditched

>> No.15085636

try it with any programming language nigga! with any calculator try it! the result will be 16 every time.

because 8÷2(2+2) = 8×0.5×4

>> No.15085637



>> No.15085654

Yes, you solve what's in the paranthesis first.


>> No.15085655

Yea I think this is what the problem is. Programming notation vs paper notation. There has been a subtle change in the last generation.

>> No.15085656

No, 2(4) is 2*4. You don't solve everything related to parenthesis first, just what's inside them.

>> No.15085660

The brackets ONLY go for the (2+2) not to other parts if you solve the brackets it disappears and doesn't turn in to (4) simply 4

>> No.15085667

i can do it brackets last and still come to the same result.

8÷2(2+2) = 4(2+2) = (8+8) = 16

>> No.15085682

The brackets hierarchy means you solve whats INSIDE the brackets, it doesnt affects whats outside goddammit

>> No.15085700

I can't believe your the first person in the thread to point that out kekekek. All the anons saying multiplication comes before division are right, except they forgot division doesnt exist.

>> No.15085705

see >>15085667
brackets don't need to be solved first that's not how algebra works. that's how little kids operate.

>> No.15085707

How are people really denying the answer is 16?

>> No.15085711

the answer is sixteen

>> No.15085716
File: 923 KB, 2630x2749, face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Whenever we have a career thread or IQ thread, more than half of the anons are making 100k+ and have an IQ over 130 yet they can't use PEDMAS properly.

If you bought into the meme that /biz/lets are above 100 IQ and are actually successful...well....I've got news

>> No.15085740

No it's just that /biz/ is full of low IQ brainlets who LARP as 130+ IQ software engineers or stock traders.

How the fuck are people still confused by PEDMAS? You learn that shit in grade school

>> No.15085762

The reading comprehension on this thread is all time low, I literally never said you need to resolve brackets first

>> No.15085767

if the answer doesn't help me short altcoins, I don't need to know it

>> No.15085822

crystalized intelligence and spatial intelligence are two different things.

>> No.15085832

exactly my point if you have iq over 80 you don't need mental crutch shit like pedmas. it's for crayon eaters.

>> No.15085834

If it were (8/2)*(2+2) it would have been explicitly written that way. The way it’s written in OP I have to assume they meant 8/(2(2+2)).

>> No.15085863
File: 164 KB, 3150x2100, fluid-intelligence-vs-crystallized-intelligence-2795004_color2-5b69d275c9e77c0050ba7290.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15085883

>The way it’s written in OP I have to assume they meant 8/(2(2+2)).
why ever?

>> No.15085947

Cope. /biz/lets just claim high IQ because they have nothing else going for them.

Shitty math skills are a sign of low IQ btw

>> No.15085969

I guess American retards didn't learn FOIL in their shit common core. just lol.

>> No.15085989

Because no one would ever write it the way it’s described in op. Because no one would write it that way, you have to interpret what the statement means. The most likely through context clues is they intended it to be read as 8 divided by 2 times (2+2) which would be read as 8/(2(2+2)) and equal to 1. I think that the rise of wolfram and other calculation software has changed the way people write notation, and the confusion in this thread is a generational issue.

>> No.15086007

No, you're just low IQ. Why is there so much debate on such an easy question?

>> No.15086025

>Because no one would ever write it the way it’s described in op.
looks pretty standard to me, but:
so you would read 1/2(2+2)8 as 1/(2(2+2)8)?
how about 8(2+2)/2? which is literally equivalent...

you can't just arbitrarily imagine () where it's not present.

>> No.15086032

Watch this >>15085231 video

>> No.15086064

Yes I would read it that way and imply parentheses

>> No.15086087

you don't imply parenthesis ever that's not how math works. we use it explicitly.

>> No.15086123

Lol who cares about math when I can just buy link

>> No.15086160

69 it's all 69.

>> No.15086179

well that's not exactly true in a few special cases when you write
the parenthesis is implied and it means 1÷(a+b)
but not when you write 1/a+b no sir!
the other one that comes to mind is the √a+b when the line covers the top of a+b also implies √(a+b)

>> No.15086181
File: 3.72 MB, 500x500, 1563581978584.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Reminder that NKN is the Wolfram Alpha coin.

>> No.15086191


>> No.15086273

Anybody that didnt answer 1 is a moron. No wonder the jews keep flooding the country with third-worlders, you guys are all fucking imbeciles.

>> No.15086324

It's shitty ambiguous notation. At work, the ÷ symbol on a single line equation is banned. If you mean it to be a fraction you must specify. Is it:

8 / 2 (4)


(8 / 2) 4. If this shit was intended written as the OP version, you're going to be warned for writing it like that. Second offense = fired.

The first answer (1) is technically correct but writing equations like this introduces a possibility of error if several people are looking at the numbers and not everyone is necessarily being as careful as possible.

>> No.15086397

I made a 34 on the ACT. The answer is 16.

>> No.15086451

i don't know where you learned math but it's pretty clear cut what it means.

the answer to op is 16 there is no way to come to a different conclusion if you know your algebra. if it was written like the first on the pic >>15085023 then it would be 1. but it ain't.

altho i never used ÷ in my life before today it's just the same as / or : none of them implies parenthesis only the fractional bar notation does.

>> No.15086457

this. and this is exactly how it used to be done.

>> No.15086482
File: 35 KB, 408x450, 1558210159353.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15086563

Exactly my point. Lazy notation is unacceptable in industry.

>> No.15086576


>> No.15086593

it's not lazy it's standard.

>> No.15086608

well iso-2000 actually advises not to use ÷ specifically for reasons like how the nords used it as - sign...
so standard is a stretch.

>> No.15086621

No it isn't.

>> No.15086753

dude there is no way to interpret this other than how it is written8÷2(2+2) is the same as 8(2+2)÷2 or (2+2)8÷2

>> No.15086947

Jesus fucking christ.

>> No.15087246

Answer is one. Seems like the people confused by this are not taking in to account that the 4 in parenthesis would be multiplied by the 2 to the left of it before you divide the eight.
These are correct

>> No.15087261

>Because no one would ever write it the way it’s described in op. Because no one would write it that way, you have to interpret what the statement means.

>> No.15087273


>> No.15087319

How can I invest in this?

Roger is forking the result to 64, maybe I should also invest on that.

>> No.15087330

Completely depends. The traditional pemdas solution is 16.

The juxta solution is 1

>> No.15087337

Understand limits

>> No.15087353

Its been a great thread to farm brainlets, keep it up lads.

>> No.15087359


>> No.15087371

How much LINK?

>> No.15087372

that's what i'm saying too i can't believe you guys can't do basic math or operators

>> No.15087395

no man there is a well defined syntax and it's not up for your special interpretation or imagination. there no ambiguity at all.

>> No.15087441

Retard. Its 4/x in your example

>> No.15087457

Everything after the slash is under the fraction line.

>> No.15087510

the problem isn't thorough enough
the answer is both 16 and 1

also, all you retards that are projecting the reason anons are getting "1" as the answer is because they think M always comes before D in PEMDAS are wrong
the real reason is because we were taught that PARENTHETICAL multiplication always comes before division

for example:

>> No.15087524

This. Follow the rules of BEDMAS and FOIL.

>> No.15087582

that's how fraction line works because it has adjustable length not how slash works
because then you would be in a pickle about 8÷4÷2 or 8/4/2 if you wish

>> No.15087604


>> No.15087684
File: 1 KB, 150x136, brainlets.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

maybe this will help you understand why you can't imagine parenthesis where it isn't.

>> No.15087738
File: 9 KB, 220x220, BC270B3C-CE49-4F1C-897F-2B6864475FBC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.15087774

Wrong. You solve the parentheses first, then complete the equation as normal left to right with an implied multiplication symbol before the parentheses.

8/2x4= 16

All of the retards saying it's 1 are smoking some common core bullshit.
>inb4 shut up boomer
Fuck you too, zoomer faggots, I nutted on your mom's back while I was solving this.

>> No.15087794

doesn't matter what order you solve it in if you come to any other conclusion than 16 you need to go back to school. see >>15085667

>> No.15087801

>It's shitty ambiguous notation. At work, the ÷ symbol on a single line equation is banned. If you mean it to be a fraction you must specify. Is it:

wtf there is no (4) this shit doesnt exist the brackets go away when the inside got solved.

You guys are just stupid american trailerpark fags

>> No.15087824

>it's another round of unintuitive division notation: the post
can't believe these threads get so much attention

>> No.15087861

your notation A and notation B are identical since you evaluate the terms from left to right if they're using operations of equal priority (multi and div). you mean 8/(2 • 4), where fraction notation clarifies that ambiguity.

>> No.15087872

Everyone who answers 1 is a npc

>> No.15087884

>everyone falling for this bait

Everytime. It never fails. Fucking math PHDs could argue this.

Or they would if they didn't immediately recognize the formula as intentionally arbitrary and defying ISO 80000-2 standards which explicit states that "the Obelus should not be used for division" for this exact reason as creating two arguably correct, but different, answers.

>> No.15087898

ISO 80000-2 you fucking retard. Obelus usage is looked down upon.

>> No.15087929

That would have to be typed as:
to leave no room for doubt, the rule:
{ [ ( ) ] }

>> No.15087946

doesn't really matter whatever you use ÷or / or : it's the same result i you think there is two possible solution to this you are the brainlet.

>> No.15088003

Thanks. TIL

>> No.15088026


Oh look, two different answers based on the sign you use. Want to say something else wrong retard?

>> No.15088051

It's 16 the way it's written

>> No.15088056

If we entertain this and do write it out as a fraction it would look like this
>8/2 *(2+2)/1
>(8/2) *((2+2)/1)
You can solve those

>> No.15088322

try (8:2)(2+2)!
wolfram uses the : weirdly
the 8/2(2+2) = 8÷2(2+2)

some languages use the / for integer division and the : for float, but mathematically there is no difference

>> No.15088382

>reddit space

>> No.15088412

i played with this a little it looks like the : or ratio operator has higher precedence in wolfram than / what is more interesting tho it ignores parenthesis.

best example is 1/4-1:4 = -3/16 not 0
but this is just wolfram really i'm not aware of any syntactic difference in math by all accounts 1/4 - 1:4 should be zero.

>> No.15088446

4 *1/2 * 8 you still arrive at the same answer 16

>> No.15088495


A fraction does not equal a parenthetical it is simply arithmetic division and interchangeable with multiplication and in the western world we read left to right please go back to 3rd grade

>> No.15088520


>> No.15088522

exactly the order doesn't matter algebra matters

>> No.15088545
File: 172 KB, 569x571, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.15088585

16 is correct 1 is wrong

1 would have been correct if you lived in
1917 and before that time/year


>> No.15088629

>1 would have been correct if you lived in
>1917 and before
i wonder how did proto-boomers solved the >>15087582 issue...

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.