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

2022-05-12: Ghost posting is now globally disabled. 2022: Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 55 KB, 680x680, EAmCTOJXsAYqL4r.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/biz/ can't solve this

 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:13:17 2019 No.15083655 16
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:13:26 2019 No.15083656 >>15083651It's 1
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:13:38 2019 No.15083658
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:13:47 2019 No.15083660 >>15083651Chink scam
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:13:56 2019 No.15083663 bidmas shitmassuck my dickmas
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:13:57 2019 No.15083665 >>15083655>>15083656>>15083658hur hur hur dur dur dur
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:15:13 2019 No.15083683 bracket first8/2(4)then division4(4)=16
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:17:57 2019 No.15083721 >>15083683Write it out as a fraction.8/2(2+2) = 8/2*4Denominators should be simplified before the whole expression is evaluated.8/8 = 1
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:19:49 2019 No.15083740 >>150836511Or the price chainlink will hit tomorrow
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:19:56 2019 No.15083746 >>15083651the answer is 162+2=4=8/2x4 (division, before multiplication)=4x4=16
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:20:40 2019 No.15083756 File: 18 KB, 472x198, 1561348444151.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083721>8/8It's 4/4
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:20:42 2019 No.15083758
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:21:46 2019 No.15083775 >>15083683>>15083746PLEASE DONT TELL ME YOU ARE THIS FUCKING DUMB PLEASE>The order of operations requires that all multiplication and division be performed first, going from left to right in the expression.>from left to righti cant fucking belive people cant do high school math on this board holy shit
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:22:45 2019 No.15083786 >>15083721https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8%2F2(2%2B2) wolfram alpha agrees with us pajeet
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:22:51 2019 No.15083789 File: 37 KB, 505x567, 1562875232468.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083721Holy 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:23:48 2019 No.15083809 File: 49 KB, 480x700, 47144759_2370737173000065_1698041854781554688_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083721OR, you could distribute 2(2+2) first,2(2+2) = 4+4 = 88/8 = 1So did you all drop out before you finished 6th grade? How can you expect to "make it" without proficiency in basic arithmetic?????
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:24:23 2019 No.15083818 >>15083775>Brackets/Parentheses always come first andlol suck my fat cock you fuckin loser
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:25:25 2019 No.15083832 File: 25 KB, 384x480, 46112802_2312755525464066_8503937170501795840_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Not even written correctly.. there are 2 correct answers.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:25:30 2019 No.15083833 >>15083775Fucking retard you’re open point validates that the answer is 16
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:27:03 2019 No.15083857 the answer is 3
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:27:12 2019 No.15083859 >>15083651Only a nigger would write it this way.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:27:47 2019 No.15083865 File: 327 KB, 3724x2096, Explaining Math to Retards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083789To 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:28:04 2019 No.15083869 >>15083789This 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:29:19 2019 No.15083878 File: 53 KB, 229x250, 1563981490853.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083869Not sure if youre larping or are you actually this retarded?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:30:13 2019 No.15083890 >>15083775A 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:30:29 2019 No.15083895 Please excuse my dear aunt sally, you dumb niggers
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:30:33 2019 No.15083896 File: 42 KB, 551x363, 1563985520428.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083869Refer to >>15083865I made it into a simple multiplication problem so your smooth brain could comprehend.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:30:45 2019 No.15083898 File: 49 KB, 750x857, 1563585527909.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083869holy fuck, i remember thinking like this in grade 2.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:32:22 2019 No.15083925 >>15083775Everyone laugh at person who can't understand their own instructions >>15083878The irony.. it fucking hurts. Why are the stupidest people also so aggressive in their incorrectness?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:33:01 2019 No.15083932 1 and the answer is link marines will make it
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:33:51 2019 No.15083940 >>15083865Stupid retard changes 2+2 to 2 × 2 and also displays massive incompetence and incorrectness in the entire understanding
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:34:23 2019 No.15083950 8/8 = 1. No 1ers btfo
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:35:25 2019 No.15083965 >>15083775high iq bait
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:35:35 2019 No.15083967 File: 1.45 MB, 1000x1000, 1563812698752.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] IM SO CONFUSED
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:35:53 2019 No.15083974 File: 280 KB, 1080x1864, Screenshot_20190802-143329_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083656>>15083658>>15083721>>15083740>>15083756>>15083758>>15083809AI will replace each of you and you will all be sterilized
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:38:31 2019 No.15084001 File: 38 KB, 650x705, 1562870689929.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083789Commutative not explicit sorry.>>15083940Taking issue with a typo to cover up your inability to comprehend basic arithmetic
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:38:44 2019 No.15084005 >>15083974based. >what is sequential processing
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:38:57 2019 No.15084007 File: 18 KB, 847x663, b4f3c5e11413cfdfc2b6b01b843f8699.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083974I think not!
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:40:29 2019 No.15084025 >>15083651Anyone who can't solve this is retarded> 8÷2(2+2)> 8÷2(4)> 4(4)> 16
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:40:56 2019 No.15084032 >>150840078/2(2+2)write out like that ^
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:42:52 2019 No.15084051 >>150836518/2 = 42+2 = 44*4 = 16two easy
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:43:26 2019 No.15084056 is PEMDAS not a thing anymore? i dont understand the confusion
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:44:09 2019 No.15084067 >>15083974Ok, let's subsitute (2+2) with x8/2x = 4xNow insert it4(2+2) = 16
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:44:45 2019 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] >>15084025how many math degrees do you have?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:45:03 2019 No.15084090 File: 40 KB, 1200x1200, share.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15084007All heretics going against the will of wolfram alpha will burn in holy fire
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:45:11 2019 No.15084092 (2+2)=48÷2(4)4(4)16Someone explain why this is wrong, I had an american education
 >> cian Fri Aug 2 14:47:26 2019 No.15084123 >>15084092This 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:47:47 2019 No.15084128 I am a pajeet, my people created math and we are the pioneers of math in the current ageMy 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:48:51 2019 No.15084135 >>150840928--------2(2+2)=8---------2(4)=8------8
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:49:33 2019 No.15084140 File: 119 KB, 841x517, 1563481119501.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] PEMDAS brainlets, multiplication before devisionits 1
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:50:47 2019 No.15084157 File: 209 KB, 701x785, 1561997027547.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15084025that's right. order in math operations if two opperators are equal then priority is from left to right so 16 is correct answer
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:51:23 2019 No.15084165 A lot of special ed retards here never learned PEMDAS in 6th grade
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:51:38 2019 No.15084169 File: 5 KB, 300x168, D408C9EB-7A62-4BE8-8190-629B2974535A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] y'all DEAD WRONG.the REAL ANSWER is:3232 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!
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:51:48 2019 No.15084172 >>15084140is this some kind of javascript math?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:52:07 2019 No.15084176 File: 179 KB, 645x729, 1553751871703.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15084128No, you fucking retard. Order of operations is left to right. It's 16. After solving the parenthesis, you divide then multiply.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:52:31 2019 No.15084181 >>15084092It's not 4 times4. It's 4 devided by. Answer is 1
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:52:36 2019 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:53:10 2019 No.15084190 >>15084140and here you are wrong my fren.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:53:50 2019 No.15084197 >>15084176ahahahahahahahahahahahah I have a Masterd degree in engineering from the US bro. there is no way I can be wrong with such trivial algebra
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:53:59 2019 No.15084198 >>15084056No 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> 1When the x(x) is a simple symbol denoting simple multiplication, and NOT under rules of paranthesis of pemdas.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:54:23 2019 No.15084207 >>15084172kek
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:54:27 2019 No.15084209 >>15084078lol what a retarded bitch i have 11 math degrees get on my level bitch
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:55:04 2019 No.15084219 >>15084078A penis, and thus the capability of critical thought.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:56:36 2019 No.15084228 Doesnt matter what pemdas/bedmasonce the equation is 8/2x4, it then becomes a LEFT --> RIGHT equation. Meaning the answer is 16.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:58:25 2019 No.15084251 File: 35 KB, 500x512, 22549805_125564468070448_3032907008367616426_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Try to solve a harder problem!
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:58:38 2019 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 14:59:19 2019 No.15084265 File: 333 KB, 289x149, stahp.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:00:54 2019 No.15084283 4x4=16
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:01:12 2019 No.15084288 >>15084140It goesPEMDASSorry you fell for the memes.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:02:54 2019 No.15084311 >>15084198>>15084256Look, 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:03:13 2019 No.15084314 >>15084251This 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:03:56 2019 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).
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:04:27 2019 No.15084329 1 and anyone who says otherwise is a filthy mutt
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:04:29 2019 No.15084332 Lmao can even do basic math the absolute state of biz
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:06:08 2019 No.15084351 (8/2)(2+2) is 168/2(2+2) is 1END. OF. THREAD
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:09:23 2019 No.15084393 Guys who get 16 out of it, arent you supposed to dissolve the bracket first ?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:10:03 2019 No.15084401 File: 9 KB, 300x300, 1527388023802.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15084329>>15084351You fucking idiots >>15084311>>15084176
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:11:06 2019 No.15084412 >>15084393Read the fucking thread. That inquiry has already been solved for you a couple of times
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:12:15 2019 No.15084432 >>15084322It's not done to be "lazy". It's done to trick biztards into getting 1.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:12:52 2019 No.15084447 >>15084311I guess you're probably right. Thanks for teaching me something.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:13:09 2019 No.15084451 it obviously equals "?"
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:13:42 2019 No.15084458 >>15084393You 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:14:01 2019 No.15084462 >>15084351It'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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:16:11 2019 No.15084488 File: 27 KB, 700x511, wtf3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] fuck division symbols
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:16:15 2019 No.15084489 >>15084447No 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:16:29 2019 No.15084494 >>15084351google says it's 16in truth 8/(2(2+2)) would be 1
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:16:31 2019 No.15084496 >>15083651TI84 calculator says 8/2(2+2) = 16.Case closed.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:18:52 2019 No.15084530 16. My wife is a teacher lolTold 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:19:06 2019 No.15084533 >>15084322But if you write it that way, your social media doesn't blow up
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:20:09 2019 No.15084541 >>15084432If 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:21:15 2019 No.15084559 >>15084494Once the parentheses are gone, you do multiplication or division in the order they're written.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:21:19 2019 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 416
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:21:47 2019 No.15084569 >>15084530>my wifenice larp
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:22:25 2019 No.15084577 >>15084569Nice projection
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:23:49 2019 No.15084592 File: 8 KB, 552x468, math.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083651it's not rocket science
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:25:07 2019 No.15084605 File: 6 KB, 320x240, 1529920542704.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:25:08 2019 No.15084606 1
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:26:37 2019 No.15084618 B O D M A SO AD MM DA OS A M D O B
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:31:43 2019 No.15084668 >>15083775>Cites order of operations>Ignores first two orders
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:31:45 2019 No.15084670 The answer is 18 / 2(2+2)8 / 2(4) 8 / 8 You multiply 2(4) before division because it's still considered part of the bracket.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:32:54 2019 No.15084681 >>15083651human 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 realityin 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 wavesso 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:33:11 2019 No.15084686 File: 906 KB, 2544x4000, 1482029619030.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083775>Currently pissing self
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:33:32 2019 No.15084690 File: 229 KB, 627x720, 1485680775761.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15084670>You multiply 2(4) before division because it's still considered part of the bracketThis 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?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:36:47 2019 No.15084735 File: 188 KB, 1300x2000, 23626742.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083683>>15083746>>15083789OH NONONONO
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:39:44 2019 No.15084783 >>15084690No, the 2 is still a function of the bracket.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:40:43 2019 No.15084800 >>15084559i know dude
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:40:54 2019 No.15084804 File: 17 KB, 204x223, 321341234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15084176>>15084401OOOOOHHHHOAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:44:04 2019 No.15084859 File: 59 KB, 424x693, 6111F86C-0D43-47B0-A080-A115DB0819E2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT: Common core cucked zoomed not realizing its 1
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:44:33 2019 No.15084865 >>15084783the bracket is gone after you add 2+2
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:45:04 2019 No.15084875 >>15084859Zoomers**
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:45:24 2019 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:47:03 2019 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 itIs this my fate? To watch the same old meme cycles be repeated ad infinitum by naive and enthusiastic newfags?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:47:48 2019 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.2(2+2)2(4)88 / 8 = 1The answer is 1. You fucking zoomers and your common core.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:48:31 2019 No.15084937 >>15084884This. Absolutely pathetic lmfao
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:49:02 2019 No.15084951 >>15084670>You multiply 2(4) before division because it's still considered part of the bracket.not with that notation no
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:49:18 2019 No.15084957 >/biz/ trying to explain maththe answer is ? you stupids
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:49:23 2019 No.15084959 >>15084884American Common Core needs to be burned to the ground.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:50:11 2019 No.15084978 >>15083651not buying your shitcoin bags pajeet.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:51:11 2019 No.15084996 >>15084561Somehow you actually succeeded in making it more obvious and still failed to get the correct answer.I'm impressed.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:52:30 2019 No.15085023 File: 3 KB, 464x154, simple.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15084922this is ridiculus
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:53:34 2019 No.15085041 answer is 6 brainlets
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:54:31 2019 No.15085052 >>15083651The problem is written incorrectly. It is non-deterministic and therefore has no single correct answer.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:54:47 2019 No.15085057 >>15084996That's the correct answer you pathetic idiotic mongoloid abscess-brained involuntarily celibate fucking retarded moronic piece of tranny shit
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:56:45 2019 No.15085094
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:56:46 2019 No.15085095
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:56:48 2019 No.15085097 Jesus, multiplication and division have the same hierarchy but are resolved from left to right, its 16 you absolute retards.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:57:23 2019 No.15085104 >>15084922If this were true it would look like this: >8 / (2(2+2))
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:58:03 2019 No.15085116 8/2(2+2)>distributive property 8/4+4>pemdas2+4= 6
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:58:06 2019 No.15085117 >>15085097he doesn't know how to get rid of the bracketsit is 2(2+2)=(2*2)+(2*2)=8 8/8=1
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:58:19 2019 No.15085120 >>15085094That fool just roasted himself LMAO
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:58:29 2019 No.15085127 The only correct answer is 1 obviously. So easy too
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 15:59:48 2019 No.15085143 >>15085116Jezus fucking christ wat
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:03:33 2019 No.15085192 It's one you dumb zoomers
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:04:06 2019 No.15085199 >>15085117where you made the mistake is8 * 1/2 * (2+2) = 8 * (1+1) = 8*2 = 16
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:04:32 2019 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:06:40 2019 No.15085231 >>15085057>>15085094>>15085120Still wrong. Keep seething.https://youtu.be/vaitsBUyiNQ
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:08:55 2019 No.15085255 File: 439 KB, 500x500, 1563475077777.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] is it 1k eoy?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:08:57 2019 No.15085256 >>15083786https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8:2*(2%2B2) fuking reterd can't even put the right sing in fuctard ther is a diferenc between fracture and divide
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:10:08 2019 No.15085266 >>15085143blockchain n oracles technology huh
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:12:12 2019 No.15085299 >>15085231He literally says that 16 is the correct answer according to modern math
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:15:18 2019 No.15085339 >>15085299yeaha/b = a*1/ba/b*c = a*1/b*c = a*c/b
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:16:12 2019 No.15085347 >>15084351incorrect retardhttps://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(8:2)*(2%2B2)
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:17:16 2019 No.15085363 >>15085117No 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:17:19 2019 No.15085364 >>15083746PEMDAS, MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU KNOW IT?!
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:19:43 2019 No.15085395 >>15085299Hahaha 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:19:43 2019 No.15085396 fucking murica fag education all fuctards
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:21:19 2019 No.15085416 >>15085363it's not about priority or order (these things are for little kids) simply about how you define you algebraa÷b = a/b = a×1/b if you understand this you can do it in any order you like.÷2 literally means ×1/2
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:21:20 2019 No.15085417 I CAN'T STAND THIS SHIT. LISTEN:DIVISION AND MULTIPLICATION HAS THE SAME HIERARQUY, WHEN THIS HAPPENS YOU RESOLVE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. ITS 16 STOP THIS NONSENSE
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:21:45 2019 No.15085421 >>15085057Haha 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:23:03 2019 No.15085434 >>15085417NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T! IT'S ALWAYS MULTIPLICATION FIRST THEN DIVISION! ARE YOU SHITTING ME RIGHT NOW?!
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:23:45 2019 No.15085446 File: 3 KB, 241x209, 1558298347225.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083655>>15083656>>15083658>>15083660>>15083663>>15083665>>15083683>>15083721>>15083740>>15083746>>15083756>>15083758>>15083775>>15083786>>15083786>>15083789>>15083789>>15083809>>15083818>>15083832>>15083833>>15083857>>15083859>>15083865>>15083869>>15083878>>15083890>>15083895>>15083896>>15083898>>15083925>>15083940>>15083950>>15083965>>15083967>>15083974HOLY 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(2+2)= 8/2*4now go from left to right:8/2=4---->4*4=16God /biz/lets are so fucking retarded
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:23:51 2019 No.15085450 >>15085416AGAIN 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:24:53 2019 No.15085469 >>15085434This is simply not true, Google it
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:27:09 2019 No.15085501 >>15085446 Its 8/2(4) not 8/2*4Solve the bracket and it's 8/8
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:28:08 2019 No.15085514 >>15085434>>15085364>>15085127>>15085117>>15084884>>15084922>>15084859>>15084735>>15084670>>15084606>>15084569>>15084488>>15084401>>15084140Multiplication and division are on the same level, retard. I thought /biz/ was supposed to be full of 130 IQ chads in software engineering
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:28:22 2019 No.15085517 >>15085450fucking childish bullshit if you ask me. and will not take people closer to understand anything. for 8 year olds it's explanation enough.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:28:58 2019 No.15085520 >>15085501Is 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?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:29:26 2019 No.15085523 >>15085501you can't do that you can only solve the bracket with 8/2 not 2
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:29:38 2019 No.15085526 >>150855018/2(2+2)1)solve bracket first: (2+2)=4Now you're left with8/2*42) 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:30:23 2019 No.15085538 >>15085520Yes
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:30:27 2019 No.15085539 >>15085517The leftmost is the object's you have. Calculations to the right of it are what you are doing to those objects.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:30:52 2019 No.15085542 >>15085446I think the answer is actually 146
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:30:58 2019 No.15085544 >>15085256>>15085347holy shit you are super retired.talking about putting the right signhttp://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8÷2%282%2B2%29
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:32:08 2019 No.15085553 >>15085539so... if i do (2+2)/2*8 then i will not arrive to the right result? fucking bullshit.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:32:27 2019 No.15085558 >>15085526 Its 2(4) not 2*4 jeezus christ almighty
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:33:00 2019 No.15085564 How many retarded bitches in here thinking it's anything other than 1....
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:34:00 2019 No.15085581 >>15085538I 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:34:02 2019 No.15085582 >>15085520It'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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:34:13 2019 No.15085584 >>15085558That'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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:34:42 2019 No.15085589 File: 10 KB, 238x212, yZbB78BCDQ6hw1YsY1cHC5jC4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15085446alternatively:>8:2(2+2)>4(2+2)>4(4)>16
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:35:38 2019 No.15085597 >>15085584 The 2(4) needs to be solved first thus making it 8/8 seeth more
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:35:46 2019 No.15085599 >>15085584mistype2(4) = 2*4>>15085589You always solve in the parenthesis first
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:36:40 2019 No.15085608 >>15085582Obviously. 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:36:45 2019 No.15085610 >>15085589yeah÷2 is the equivalent of ×0.5after that you can do whatever the fuck you want order wise because multiplication will allow you to do them in any order.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:36:48 2019 No.15085611 File: 43 KB, 960x960, 1560891686440.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15085597You'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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:36:49 2019 No.15085613 Division and multiplication are the same in the order of operationsI'm a highschool dropout and even I remember that shit from the 2 days I spent in math class before I ditched
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:38:24 2019 No.15085636 >>15085608try 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:38:25 2019 No.15085637 >>15085611 BRACKETS FIRST BEFORE GOING LEFT TO RIGHT. THATS WHY ITS 2(4) AKA BRACKETS AND NOT *
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:40:12 2019 No.15085654 >>15085637Yes, you solve what's in the paranthesis first.8/2(2+2)->8/2*4->4*4->16
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:40:17 2019 No.15085655 >>15085636Yea I think this is what the problem is. Programming notation vs paper notation. There has been a subtle change in the last generation.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:40:21 2019 No.15085656 >>15085597No, 2(4) is 2*4. You don't solve everything related to parenthesis first, just what's inside them.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:40:45 2019 No.15085660 >>15085637The 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:40:59 2019 No.15085667 >>15085637i can do it brackets last and still come to the same result.8÷2(2+2) = 4(2+2) = (8+8) = 16
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:42:35 2019 No.15085682 >>15085558The brackets hierarchy means you solve whats INSIDE the brackets, it doesnt affects whats outside goddammit
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:43:57 2019 No.15085700 >>15085636I 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:44:05 2019 No.15085705 >>15085682see >>15085667brackets don't need to be solved first that's not how algebra works. that's how little kids operate.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:44:12 2019 No.15085707 How are people really denying the answer is 16?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:44:22 2019 No.15085711 the answer is sixteen
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:44:38 2019 No.15085716 File: 923 KB, 2630x2749, face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15083651Whenever 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:46:33 2019 No.15085740 >>15085655No 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:48:13 2019 No.15085762 >>15085705The reading comprehension on this thread is all time low, I literally never said you need to resolve brackets first
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:48:42 2019 No.15085767 >>15083651if the answer doesn't help me short altcoins, I don't need to know it
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:53:40 2019 No.15085822 >>15085716crystalized intelligence and spatial intelligence are two different things.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:54:33 2019 No.15085832 >>15085740exactly my point if you have iq over 80 you don't need mental crutch shit like pedmas. it's for crayon eaters.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:54:37 2019 No.15085834 >>15085740If 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)).
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:56:45 2019 No.15085863 File: 164 KB, 3150x2100, fluid-intelligence-vs-crystallized-intelligence-2795004_color2-5b69d275c9e77c0050ba7290.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 16:57:48 2019 No.15085883 >>15085834>The way it’s written in OP I have to assume they meant 8/(2(2+2)).why ever?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:02:12 2019 No.15085947 >>15085863>>15085822Cope. /biz/lets just claim high IQ because they have nothing else going for them.Shitty math skills are a sign of low IQ btw
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:04:05 2019 No.15085969 I guess American retards didn't learn FOIL in their shit common core. just lol.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:05:21 2019 No.15085989 >>15085883Because 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:06:28 2019 No.15086007 >>15085989No, you're just low IQ. Why is there so much debate on such an easy question?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:07:58 2019 No.15086025 >>15085989>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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:08:13 2019 No.15086032 >>15085989Watch this >>15085231 video
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:10:40 2019 No.15086064 >>15086025Yes I would read it that way and imply parentheses
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:12:24 2019 No.15086087 >>15086064you don't imply parenthesis ever that's not how math works. we use it explicitly.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:14:37 2019 No.15086123 Lol who cares about math when I can just buy link
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:17:52 2019 No.15086160 >>1508365169 it's all 69.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:18:59 2019 No.15086179 >>15086087well that's not exactly true in a few special cases when you write1-----a+bthe 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)
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:19:17 2019 No.15086181 File: 3.72 MB, 500x500, 1563581978584.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Reminder that NKN is the Wolfram Alpha coin.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:20:10 2019 No.15086191 8----2*41
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:26:05 2019 No.15086273 >>15083651Anybody that didnt answer 1 is a moron. No wonder the jews keep flooding the country with third-worlders, you guys are all fucking imbeciles.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:30:33 2019 No.15086324 >>15084198It'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)Or(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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:36:01 2019 No.15086397 >>15083651I made a 34 on the ACT. The answer is 16.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:41:12 2019 No.15086451 >>15086324i 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:41:48 2019 No.15086457 >>15086191this. and this is exactly how it used to be done.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:43:26 2019 No.15086482 File: 35 KB, 408x450, 1558210159353.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:49:16 2019 No.15086563 >>15086451Exactly my point. Lazy notation is unacceptable in industry.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:50:00 2019 No.15086576 >>15086457Out
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:51:03 2019 No.15086593 >>15086563it's not lazy it's standard.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:52:07 2019 No.15086608 >>15086593well iso-2000 actually advises not to use ÷ specifically for reasons like how the nords used it as - sign...so standard is a stretch.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 17:52:46 2019 No.15086621 >>15086593No it isn't.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:01:34 2019 No.15086753 >>15086621dude 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:16:56 2019 No.15086947 >>15086753Jesus fucking christ.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:38:35 2019 No.15087246 >>15083651Answer 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. >>15083683These are correct>>15083721>>15083786>>15085740
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:39:59 2019 No.15087261 >>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.THIS IS THE PROBLEM FAGGOTS GETTING 16 ARE HAVING. THEY SEE WHAT YOU WRITE AND *ASSUME* YOU MEANT SOMETHING ELSE
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:40:54 2019 No.15087273
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:44:04 2019 No.15087319 >>15084169How can I invest in this?Roger is forking the result to 64, maybe I should also invest on that.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:45:08 2019 No.15087330 Completely depends. The traditional pemdas solution is 16.The juxta solution is 1
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:45:40 2019 No.15087337 >>15084251Understand limits
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:46:44 2019 No.15087353 Its been a great thread to farm brainlets, keep it up lads.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:46:59 2019 No.15087359 >>15083651>8/2(2+2)=>8/2(4)=>8/8=>1=1
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:47:55 2019 No.15087371 >>15085116How much LINK?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:48:03 2019 No.15087372 >>15086947that's what i'm saying too i can't believe you guys can't do basic math or operators
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:50:01 2019 No.15087395 >>15087261no man there is a well defined syntax and it's not up for your special interpretation or imagination. there no ambiguity at all.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:54:00 2019 No.15087441 >>15084067Retard. Its 4/x in your example
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 18:55:21 2019 No.15087457 >>15084032Everything after the slash is under the fraction line.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:00:03 2019 No.15087510 >>15083651the problem isn't thorough enoughthe answer is both 16 and 1also, 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 wrongthe real reason is because we were taught that PARENTHETICAL multiplication always comes before divisionfor example:8/2*5*2(2+2)8/2*5*2(4)8/2*5*84*5*820*8160
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:01:02 2019 No.15087524 >>15087359This. Follow the rules of BEDMAS and FOIL.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:05:11 2019 No.15087582 >>15087457that's how fraction line works because it has adjustable length not how slash worksbecause then you would be in a pickle about 8÷4÷2 or 8/4/2 if you wish
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:06:38 2019 No.15087604 >>15083775OH NONONONONO ANON
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:12:47 2019 No.15087684 File: 1 KB, 150x136, brainlets.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15087582maybe this will help you understand why you can't imagine parenthesis where it isn't.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:17:02 2019 No.15087738 File: 9 KB, 220x220, BC270B3C-CE49-4F1C-897F-2B6864475FBC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:20:09 2019 No.15087774 >>15087524Wrong. You solve the parentheses first, then complete the equation as normal left to right with an implied multiplication symbol before the parentheses.8/2x4= 16All of the retards saying it's 1 are smoking some common core bullshit.>inb4 shut up boomerFuck you too, zoomer faggots, I nutted on your mom's back while I was solving this.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:22:24 2019 No.15087794 >>15087774doesn'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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:23:28 2019 No.15087801 >>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: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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:25:07 2019 No.15087824 >>15083651>it's another round of unintuitive division notation: the postcan't believe these threads get so much attention
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:28:54 2019 No.15087861 >>15086324your 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:29:48 2019 No.15087872 >>15084172Bravo.Everyone who answers 1 is a npc
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:31:21 2019 No.15087884 >>15083651>everyone falling for this baitEverytime. 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:32:52 2019 No.15087898 >>15087801ISO 80000-2 you fucking retard. Obelus usage is looked down upon.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:35:52 2019 No.15087929 >>15083721That would have to be typed as:8/[2(2+2)] to leave no room for doubt, the rule:{ [ ( ) ] }
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:37:44 2019 No.15087946 >>15087884>>15087898doesn'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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:42:38 2019 No.15088003 >>15087684Thanks. TIL
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:45:09 2019 No.15088026 >>15087946https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8:2(2%2B2)https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8%C3%B72(2%2B2)Oh look, two different answers based on the sign you use. Want to say something else wrong retard?
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:47:34 2019 No.15088051 It's 16 the way it's written
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 19:48:06 2019 No.15088056 >>15083721If we entertain this and do write it out as a fraction it would look like this >8/2 *(2+2)/1 >or>4/1*4/1>or>8/2*4/1>or>(8/2) *((2+2)/1)You can solve those
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 20:17:14 2019 No.15088322 >>15088026try (8:2)(2+2)!wolfram uses the : weirdlythe 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 20:22:52 2019 No.15088382 >>15085637>reddit space
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 20:25:14 2019 No.15088412 >>15088322i 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 0but 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 20:27:47 2019 No.15088446 >>150855534 *1/2 * 8 you still arrive at the same answer 16
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 20:31:41 2019 No.15088495 >>15087246ParenthesisExponentMultiplication/DivisionAddition/SubtractionYOU ARE AN IDIOTA 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 20:33:52 2019 No.15088520
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 20:34:00 2019 No.15088522 >>15088446exactly the order doesn't matter algebra matters
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 20:35:34 2019 No.15088545 File: 172 KB, 569x571, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 20:39:28 2019 No.15088585 >>15083655>>15083683>>15083789>>15083974>>15084025>>15084051>>15084067>>15084092>>15084157>>15084176>>15084283>>15084530>>15084561>>15084592>>15084605>>1508519916 is correct 1 is wrong1 would have been correct if you lived in 1917 and before that time/year>>15085299
 >> Anonymous Fri Aug 2 20:44:50 2019 No.15088629 >>15088585>1 would have been correct if you lived in>1917 and beforei wonder how did proto-boomers solved the >>15087582 issue...
>>
Delete posts