[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 11 KB, 821x411, 1342180608021.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4867961 No.4867961 [Reply] [Original]

5, isn't it?

>> No.4867967

it was posted on /v/, you saw the very first posts and you can post it on wolfram alpha so I assume you are just posting this thread to piss /sci/ off
congratulations, you have won
i wish i could punch people on the face through the internet

>> No.4867983
File: 512 KB, 450x288, 1338060618897.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4867983

>>4867967
>wolfram alpha
English motherfucker, do you speak it?

>> No.4867985

>>4867961
The brackets are just to make it readable.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=16+%2F+2%288-3%284-2%29%29%2B1&lk=4

>> No.4868005

>>4867961
my calculation is 5 too. Why is wolphram say it's 17? where is my calc. error?

>> No.4868011

>>4868005
(16/2)*[8-3*(4-2)]+1 is what Wolfram Alpha is doing

>> No.4868020

Not Op, but I also wanted to post it here. It was posted on /v/,but if anyone on this site knows if the parenthesis outweighs the left to right rule, it's /sci/

>> No.4868031

It's 17. People saying 5 see the lack of multiplication sign before the parentheses and in their mind translate that to having priority over the division sign. By not simplifying it (i.e. put the 'x' back in there, it becomes more obvious.

>> No.4868047

16/2[8-3(4-2)]+1
16/2[5(2)]+1
16/2[10]+1
8[10]+1
80+1
81
faggots

>> No.4868049

>ambiguous question
>i bet you cant answer this

>> No.4868052
File: 108 KB, 615x1279, 1278699908662.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4868052

>>4868047

>> No.4868054

>>4868047
>subtraction before multiplication
This is why Americans can't have nice things anymore.

>> No.4868062

5 is correct

>> No.4868069

>>4868054
Pemdas, dumbass. Learn order of operations.

>> No.4868072

If I was made to answer, I would say 5. The only time you would see an equation written like this would be as a small expression in the middle of text, in which case the shorthand would make the answer 5, because the alternatives would have different brackets or would be longer.

However it is naturally ambiguous so either answer can be argued as correct, though if written by someone that knew what they were doing they would mean 5 as the answer.

>> No.4868078

Ambiguous question.
Kindly fuck off, I'm surprised people fell for it.

>> No.4868086
File: 65 KB, 1452x771, 300 g or your money back.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4868086

>>4868078

>> No.4868089

>>4868047
/thread

>> No.4868090

It's 17. Remember, operate with what's in parentheses first. After that, multiply/divide from left to right.

>> No.4868096
File: 69 KB, 395x500, cp1111.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4868096

16 / 2[8 - 3(4 - 2)] + 1

16 / 2[8 - 3(2)] + 1
16 / 2[8 -6] + 1
16 / 2[2] + 1
16 / 4 + 1
5

>> No.4868100
File: 24 KB, 632x467, 1309367591139.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4868100

>>4868047

>> No.4868102

>>4868096
Right to left, not multiplication then division.

>> No.4868104

>>4868102
left to right* I'm retarded.

>> No.4868108

RPN sequence:

4(enter)2-3*8(swap)-2*16(swap)/1+

5

>> No.4868116

>>4868096
16 / 2[2] + 1
8 * 2 + 1
16 +1
17

>> No.4868138

>>4868096
troll

>> No.4868153

its 9 you nabs

>> No.4868162

What does the symbol between the 16 and the 2 mean?

>> No.4868181

its 0

>> No.4868196

>>4868072
it's 17. think of the 16 / 2 as a fraction and it will make it easier to think about.

>> No.4868205

I did it in my head and got 24
double checked with calculator.
yup /sci/ is a bunch of idiots

>> No.4868210

>>4868205
did it again and got 5, well /sci/ still idiots

>> No.4868217

>>4868210
finally got 17

>> No.4868221

This question again?
16/2[8-3(4-2)]+1
16/2[8-3(2)]+1
16/2[2]+1
8[2]+1
17

Even though you might be tempted to multiply the 2[2] first because it looks like the whole thing is in the denominator, the way this equation is written implies one needs to divide first, then multiply.

>> No.4868223

Oh boy here we go again...

>> No.4868225

I'd go with 5.

>> No.4868266

first I thought 5 but
16/2*[2]+1
must be done left to right
and that evaluates to 17

>> No.4868275

>>4868221
>>4868031

these

either they think that the left-to-right division symbol / has some kind of grouping, or they see number before a parenthesis as being part of the parentheses, as if it were inside

>> No.4868279

>>>/b/

>> No.4868308

Some people do claim, though, that implicit multiplication has by convention precedence over explicit multiplication and division.

Or if you follow mnemonics like PEMDAS or similar then multiplication has precedence over division.

>> No.4868312

>>4868308
According to the same logic (peMDas), addition should have preference over subtraction(pemdAS); so 4 - 3 + 2 = -1.
Nope.avi

>> No.4868355

It's 5, end of story

>> No.4868407

Poorly written expression. As such, it can have multiple answers.

The confusion lies in the division symbol and lack of parentheses/brackets.

Fail.

>> No.4868417

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=16%2F2%5b8-3%284-2%29%5d%2B1

my wolfram says 5?
i got 17...

>> No.4868443

>>4868417

Put spaces in between each operator. With that notation it was just trying to guess what you really meant.

These threads really disgust me. It's like arguing over grammar while discussing the meaning of some piece of literature.

>> No.4868457

>>4868407
the confusion is whether or not implicit multiplication take precedence over normal multiplication or division. it doesn't

>> No.4868541

>>4868355
You're a moron. How old are you, kid? Don't chime in if you're not yet in high school.

>>4868407
It's a poorly written expression, but that doesn't mean it can have multiple answers. If you were meant to divide 16 by the entire expression (save the +1) then the two should have also been included in parentheses. As it is written the answer is 17 and it can't be anything else.

>> No.4868543

>>4868407
There is no confusion. Merely follow standard order of operations.

>> No.4868573

Okay, so look at it this way:
1.(16/2)[8-3(4-2)]+1
2.(8)[8-3(2)]+1
3.(8)[8-6]+1
4.(8)[2]+1
5.16+1
6.17
Note:The parentheses around 16/2 don't change the value of the problem, merely make it easier to solve also, from step 2 to 3 following PEMDAS the parentheses have multiple operations going on so following PEMDAS within the parentheses you must multiply the 2 and the 3.

>> No.4868577

Just distribute everything then keep the order of operations in mind.

>> No.4868580

>>4868543
It's not like they teach you. The only actual order of operations rule is multiplication before addition (and then obviously division before subtraction). Multiplication and division are on the same tier.
If the expression isn't clear just from this rule, then it is ambiguous.

Forget that PEMDAS shit.

>> No.4868599

>>4868580
Also that's why fractions are used instead of this retarded division sign.
Have you ever tried typing out a complex equation in a single line? You're gonna use a shitload of brackets. If you don't, the computer gets confused and misinterprets your input.
Math being graphic removes the need to constantly use brackets. Things like upper index for exponents or fractions for division.

>> No.4868682

yes 5
the problems come when you do the 16/2 before they multiplied the contents of the brackets with the 2

>> No.4868697

if you get anything other than 17 you are fucking bad
if you think there's "more than one answer" you're fucking bad
if you think there's any ambiguity in the notation you're fucking terrible

it's 17. fuck off.