So what is the right answer?
>>80379956
I was talking with a monkey who gets caught in lies and then purposefully misquotes you to make himself look less of a monkey. Not choosing to enable this garbage again
Even though it's PEMDAS I thought you did Multiplication and Division in the order they appear? Isn't the right answer 16?
1 u tripfag retard
>>80380209
This is a joke right. Picture is photo shopped right?
This is subversion to make our people inefficient in STEM
Yuri talked about this exact thing, leading education away from pragmatic study.
>>80379956
how do you fuck up a projector to the point where shit is at that angle
It's fucking 1. How fucking stupid can you be?
>>80380263
Ofc it is. I have no Idea how it can be 1.
>>80380448
20/(5 * (2 * 2))
I guess
>>80380344
yes. BBut americans are till easily baited
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20%2F5*(2%2B2)
To be fair, the format that equation is in is sloppy. But the answer is 1.
If you do it the old way, the answer is still 16.
You'd have to be pretty bad at math to think the answer is 1.
>>80380594
you put an addition symbol where it was a multiplication symbol
2*2 = 4
20 / 5 = 4
4(4) what?
PLEASE EXECUTE MY DEGENERATE AFRICAN SLAVE
>>80380504
Yes but that's an added ( which wasn't in before. So the correct result is 16 and can never be 1,
Before there's a billion retard replies, it should be noted that any / or ÷ notation is unscientific because it is ambigious.
This is because PEMDAS or BODMAS or whatevermas is a flawed method for the order of operation, there are equations you are not capable of solving with it in the first place.
The problem is twofold: First PEMDAS introduces a false order of operation based on the linear notation that avoids fractions (which solve the problem). Then, since this would inevitably produce false results, it adds EXTRA rules that are NOT present in the actual mathematical rules, in order to fix those problems (such as processing equations left to right, this rule is literally invented just so PEMDAS doesn't break). What you're left with is a broken mess of a system that should be abolished past the 3rd grade.
Every division can be expressed as a fraction and you can write those down without a ton of extra parentheses and without any ambiguity.
>>80380894
You are right. But in this situation the answer is the same. 2+2 == 2*2
>>80380902
it's 4 *4
>>80381173
>ny / or ÷ notation is unscientific because it is ambigious.
In what way?
>>80381153
Yeah which is weird to say that the old way is 1. I always thought common core was just put whatever answer you want, and as long as you can show the correct way to get to the answer, even if it's wrong, it's right.
>>80381233
So any number in front of () is multipled by the number inside the ().
Maths was never my strong suit.
>>80379956
20/5 (4x4)=16
>This is apparently common core
Am i missing something here?
>>80381153
>>80379956
The old way was never correct. Common core is stupid but the answer was always 16
You do the brackets first, which is 2*2=4
Then you divid 20/5=4
then you multiply 4 outside of the brackets with the 4 inside of the brackets with is 16.
Brackets
Exponentials
Division
Multiplication
Addition
Subtraction
this is fucking easy
>>80381422
Yes, it's the norm. When it does not specify anything, any number in front of brackets is multiplying the number for the result of the operation inside the brackets
>>80381173
tl;dr
20/5 (2*2) can be read either
20 * (2*2)
________
5
If you consider 20/5 a fraction and (2*2) a multiplier
or
20
________
5 * (2*2)
Both different equations, therefore different answers.
>>80379956
What method is used to get 1?
>>80379956
old way? what... is this for real?
>>80381495
>BEDMAS
>Not BODMAS
Not only pic related but they want to be different in their school curriculum
>>80379956
Fuck you guys I'm not doing this again.
>>80381495
>BEDMAS
Its PEMDAS, but you're still right
>>80381640
No you can't. There is no brackets in 5*(2*2).
So there is only 1 way to read this. (20/5) *(2*2)
>>80380448
>>80380504
holy shit does PEMDA not mean anything to you faggots?? PARENTHESIS FIRST, EXPONENTS, MULTIPLICATION, DIVISION, ADDITION/SUBTRACTION:
20/5(2*2)
20/5*4
20/20
1
holy shit
>>80379956
16
rule of precedence
>>80381495
>BEDMAS
REEEEEEEEEE GET OUT YOU FUCKING SYRUPNIGGER
>>80381783
FUCKING AMERICANS
>>80380902
>>80381422
Wat? How are you even able to type at this level of retardation?
>>80380448
Parenthesis first...
Wait im being trolled arent i
>>80381838
why do you make 5*4 first?
>>80379956
1 and kys
>>80381965
(2*2)
great. Now make the 20/5*4
Order of operations mean nothing. Try deciphering any poo-in-loo programming code.
>>80382027
>>80381689
>>80381783
>>80381886
Brackets is a better word than parenthesis because [] and {} are parenthesis. () are brackets.
>>80382027
lol
>czech education
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20%2F5*(2%2B2)
>>80381971
>american education
>>80381340
Implied brackets mainly.
Again, PEMDAS adds extra rules to try to fix its own shortcomings.
Consider the equation y = 1 / 3 / 3
As a rational thinking mathematician you know that the order of multiplication (which is what a division really is) is associative, which means you are freely allowed to move operants around. Of course this horribly fails when you use it with a notation like the above.
Is it (1/3) / 3 or 1 / (3/3)? This matters to you if you get into higher level math and not this high school shit where people still use / or ÷ and get equations that are a lot more complex.
Worse than that, PEMDAS isn't even a complete system. What do you do with an equation like this: x=|3-5|
or -1/2^e
PEMDAS doesn't give you an answer, because PEMDAS is fundamentally designed for literal children so they don't have to deal with axiomatic math rules such as the associative property of multiplication, instead they made something that only works left to right.
The real problem is they never teach you that this is the windowlicker method and you should stop using it as soon as possible.
>>80381971
Just the way it is, the way i see it is Maths is a sequence of instructions, you fuck up just ONE of them and you're entire solution is ruined, that's why i hate maths.
>>80379956
20/5(2*2)=1
but
20/5*(2*2)=16
>>80381838
>MULTIPLICATION/DIVISION
>ADDITION/SUBTRACTION
Based on order
>>80382170
>portugal
>talking shit
high school must be hard but you can always flip burgers if you don't make it
its 16 you dumb niggers
>>80379956
They are trying to get rid of PEMDAS! THOSE BASTARDS!
>>80382171
>Australia aboriginal
>2.4 percent
>>80381805
I tried to show that depending on how you read the problem you will get a different equation.
It is a problem of presentation.
I agree with you.
>>80382314
no an argument
Your failure to compute a simple equation is not the Barbarossa's fault.
>>80382552
not*
Math gives me anxiety. I actually patted myself on the back for remembering how to solve this. Then I'd look at the next 49 questions and realize I'm dumber than an 8th grader.
>>80382223
As an example, consider something like pic related. You don't wanna know how this looks like with / notation. You have to add a billion brackets.
With proper fractions, you can immediately note the relationship between certain elements which lets you simplify the equation efficiently.
>>80382223
>because PEMDAS is fundamentally designed for literal children
True. Everyone who knows a little about math stops using stop using this once they are 15. Shit like OP pic should be automatic to highschoolers
> x=|3-5|
what as this got to do with pemdas? The answer is 2 or am i missing anything?
> use / or ÷ and get equations that are a lot more complex.
they do? in highschool we always used fractions
>>80382260
That is what it's beautifull about math
The results diverge after the parenthesis calculation. So what's first, Multiplication or division. I've heard conflicting opinions on this, but since they are just opinions...
>>80379956
The equation is intentionally written like shit to cause the confusion. That notation is revolting.
>>80380540
>>80380344
No, this kind of shit is real now, not just a meme. Common core teaches this kind of 'no wrong answers' bullshit in math
>>80382782
>what as this got to do with pemdas? The answer is 2 or am i missing anything?
It is 2, but PEMDAS does not cover absolute values. That's the point. PEMDAS doesn't technically even cover the left to right rule, they added that because it literally doesn't work without i, despite that rule not being present in "real" math.
>>80382782
>Spend hours doing equation
>Make a single error
>Wrong
>reeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
isn't the real problem with this image the notion that both are equally correct?
I got 1. A lot of you niggers got 16. We both can't be right.
>>80379956
You do the parenthesis first (2 * 2) = 4
Then 4 (4) <--again. parenthesis.
20/20 = 1
that picture has to be a shop, no way they're teaching it any other way
>>80379956
PE(MD)(AS)
The correct answer is 16
>>80382261
Are you stupid? 5(2*2) is by predefinition, 5*(2*2). Only if it's specified that it's not a multiplication, like 5+(2*2) or 5/(2*2)
>>80383044
BODMAS fuckkard
>>80381838
Except multiplication/division take order from left to right. Same goes for subtraction/addition. PEMDAS has rules associated with it, too.
So the real answer is 16
>>80382985
exactly
>>80382773
if you werent retarded you would know you always do the top of the division line before the bottom.
>>80382985
Google common core standards they are. You get full credit for wrong answers if you prove you understood the concept and just messed up the execution.
>>80382314
high school is far from me. I'm in CS, so i know more about math then you
>>80382473
Pemdas is for kids. you don't even need to make the operation in brackets first.
>>80382549
But there is absolutely no ambiguity in this problem. there is only lack of knowledge or simply mistakes
>>80381153
/ (as opposed to ÷) implies parentheses because it is an alternate form of fraction notation.
20 / 5 (2*2) is really
20
____
5(2*2)
When written clearly this is obvious. Of course confusion can be avoided by simply including the implied parentheses in the first place.
>>80383123
I don't think you understand the purpose of my point
and btw, the equation is (1+2)/3×((((3/3+3)/(2+2/3+3))/(2+3))/(3+3))/(1+1) if you write it out with the shit notation.
This is why PEMDAS is shit.
>>80383246
than you*
too bad you don't know shit about english
>>80381689
BEDMAS is what is taught in Australia.
>>80379956
This slide is a blatant lie. They made the "old way" incorrect to make it worse than the "new way".
Answer is 16 and person who created this slide is a lier or a retard
>>80382773
except that it is ambiguous that way while it is not ambiguous with / notation
>>80382261
THIS
>>80383262
>This is why PEMDAS is shit.
>i dont like things that are hard so working out equations is shit
mathmeticians way smarter than you all use BEDMAS. just becuase you get triggered by something doesnt make it bad
>>80382165
If we are being specific,
{} are braces
[] are brackets
() are parentheses
Colloquially, all three (and more) can be called brackets or parentheses.
>>80383399
No it is not, BODMAS/BOMDAS
>>80383399
Right like I said in
>>80382817
There's BEMDAS and PEDMAS, the issue is whether division or multiplication are first, so which one is it.
Need matematicians pls.
>>80380363
You learn geometry from common core
>>80383550
No they don't.
>>80383472
There is literally no ambiguity with fractions. But there is with OP's pic, hence we have about the ten millionth thread about this shit.
>>80383554
>tfw there are people who maths comes easily to them while you suck
>>80382985
There is no second parenthesis. After you do the first one, you go back to the start of the sum because neither / nor * has priority. The answer is 16.
>>80383607
Mfw I fucked that up
*PEMDAS and
*BODMAS
>>80382773
exactly. But we are talking about OP pic, and none of this is needed
>>80382869
No it's not.
>>80382958
What kind of equations are you doing that require hours? Are you some kind of Math PhD or something?
>>80382983
16 is the only real answer
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20%2F5*(2%2B2)
>>80382985
holy fuck are you stupid?
>Then 4 (4) <--again. parenthesis.
This is some grade A autism (4) ==4
>>80382261
>See flag
>Ignore
>>80383556
BEDMAS is the only thing I've encountered in about fifteen different primary and secondary schools (I've had occasion to observe due to my work). I've seen BODMAS from the subhuman states, but I have only ever seen foreigners use MD as opposed to DM.
>>80383646
>There is literally no ambiguity with fractions
yes there is
which one has priority? thats the ambiguity there you idiot
and OP is NOT ambiguous to anyone with basic mathematical education
>>80383811
>subhuman states
what did he mean by this?
>>80383812
>which one has priority?
Between what? Multiplication and division? Neither, if you know the most basic thing about math.
>>80383646
Fractions over other fractions are definitely ambiguous written like in >>80382773 . You have to keep track of the "bar sizes".
>>80379956
what the fuck
>>80383683
The problem is that it is 5(2x2)
There is no multiplication
This means that you use 5 of what would come out of that bracket
That means thats you can multiply 5 by everything in brackets like
20/(10x10)
>>80383454
>corrects spelling errors on 4chin
anything more autistic?
>>80379956
>Literally telling kids not to follow the basics of math because of wording.
>When several english countries have completely different ways of saying said equation.
I know this is bait but goddam im mad as hell from this.
Arguing about the representation of an arithmetic problem is not mathematics.
It's a poorly-written problem. End of fucking story.
>>80383984
>Fractions over other fractions are definitely ambiguous written like in
No they're not. Stop posting uninformed shit like this.
Learn to substitute.
>>80383607
There is no priority because in simple arithmetic division is multiplication by fractions. It's fundamentally the same operation here, so MD and DM are functionally identical. There is also no priority for addition or subtraction; we could just as well write BEMDSA.
As has been mentioned (in my own posts and in others), the issue is implied parentheses.
>>80383882
States that I don't live in. Places like N.S.W., Victoria, Tasmania, etc.. Full of subhumans.
>>80383903
reread my post or are you too illiterate to understand it?
fucking germans are always so unintelligent and obnoxious, thats why we dont want your kind in our country
>>80382901
No this picture isn't real. All common core is about is teaching mental math and better understanding of number manipulation. I really don't see how it's a problem considering the old way has churned out so many mathematical failures but I'm happy to hear opinions from a bunch of B- precalc students
>>80379956
to the math problem? 20
>>80384143
>Places like N.S.W., Victoria, Tasmania, etc..
Fuck off WA, the mining booms finished
>>80384321
oops no 16 my bad famicom ayy lmao
>>80384191
I always like it when some high schooler is trying to lecture me, a PHD in mathematics and theoretical physics on math.
Please purchase that exit bag already.
What is this?
Why should both me correct? It can only be 16, because you always do it from left to right.
>>80379956
P
E
MD
<->
AS
<->
20/5(2•2)
or 20÷5•(2•2)
Parentheses first, so we get:
20÷5•4
Now down to multiplication and division, you solve going from the left to the right.
So we now have:
4•4
Answer is 16. When we see something like 4(5), that's just a multiplication problem, and doesn't have first priority over the left to right rule.
>>80383788
>>80384140
Lol these Eurabs saying no ur wrong when you're both retarded, wrong, and actively disinforming people about math. Go back to your grade school textbooks and read up, shit for brains.
>>80384459
why do i find math so unrewarding mr maths person?
>You solved the question
>Well Done! here are 30 more that progressively get harder
>>80384459
>PHD in mathematics and theoretical physics on math
lel
>theoretical physics
no wonder you are too autistic to understand what other people are saying
Y'all are missing the point, how the fuck can both 1 and 16 be correct as shown in that teachers slide...
>>80384321
>>80384409
This is why common core exists
>>80382223
I don't know why they teach it in the first place - why not just teach in accordance with formal practice, even without proper formal explanations and definitions? I, as many students do, had an inordinate amount of trouble transitioning to higher level maths precisely because of non-rules that had been drilled in to my head for thirteen years of school.
>>80384014
The multiplication symbol is invisible, basic mathis isn't hard.
>there are people who will argue with calculators
this is why you don't put slash signs in equations
wtf
>>80384786
Propably because you'd overload the average american with his 4 brain cells if it isn't condensed to some rhyme they can chant.
>>80384817
You're arguing against the way a calculator interpreted a poorly-written problem. It will change based on the calculator you use. The fault lies with the cancer-tier math teacher who doesn't know how to compose a proper arithmetic equation.
>>80384880
Or just don't be a retard.
>>80384700
Mom gives me GBP when I do my math homework.
>>80383080
I'm aware it's defined like that, but a lot of people have the convention of parentheses being implied when the * is omitted in the denominator.
>>80384913
>It will change based on the calculator you use.
Show me a calculator that has the answer as 1.
>>80384928
That's what he said.
>>80384957
>mummy just asks me if i did it
>>80384913
I've done this same problem on many different calculators, they will all give the same answer if they aren't shit. Do I need to dig out all my old TI calculators to show you how stupid you are?
>>80384555
No dumbass, you do the numbers in parenthesis first (2*2=4) then the 5, being in front of the parenthesis is multiplied by that number (5*5=20). The problem then equates to 20/20=1
>>80384817
Gee, surely nobody would do such a thing.
>>80384913
>You're arguing against the way a calculator interpreted a poorly-written problem.
>literally arguing agaisnt a calculator
>>80385000
The onus is not on me to do so. The fact that there is a 2000 page thread about this indicates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the problem is poorly-written and requires interpretation to understand.
Do you know how to fix it, UKuck?
(20/5)*(2*2), if you want 1, or 20/(5*(2*2)) if you want 16.
This is childs' play, stop being willfully intellectually dishonest.
>>80384742
You're missing the point, this thread is low tier bait, just like all math threads that aren't on /sci/.
>>80384913
>>80385213
>>80385000
>>80385125
Hi -> >>80385166
Same principle with different numbers.
>He thinks the notation is okay in any way shape or form.
>>80384913
false
>>80385213
>>80385125
See: >>80385166
And fucking kill yourself before you ever talk about the reliability of a computer calculation again.
>>80385166
Different Formatting/Settings
>>80379956
Who the fuck learns this stuff in primary school?
>>80384742
That's trivially wrong, so nobody is interested in it. If we agreed with the claim that both answers are "equally correct", then nobody would be arguing about which answer is correct.
>>80385368
Now this is wishful thinking. Accept your defeat and move on.
>>80379956
The question is wrong because it uses inconsistent syntax.
So in other words it's deliberately designed to be a trick question.
Any question deliberately designed to be a trick question that is presented academically should be punishable by flogging.
>>80385399
>paki education
>>80379956
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>80379956
16 obviously. Why would anyone think anything else? Are Americans really this stupid?
>>80381971
Because the way this question is written is misleading to the faggot retards on this board.
Its really supposed to look like this
20
-----------------
5 ( 2 * 2 )
the (2*2) is part of the denominator and these faggots pushing common core are muddying the waters on a unified mathematics system.
They are faggot assholes.
>>80383788
>none of this is needed
its relevant as fuck to the subject matter. I didn't even know about this controversy until today
>>80385355
>And fucking kill yourself before you ever talk about the reliability of a computer calculation again.
>some 10 dollar casio calculator is wrong
>therefore computer calculators are wrong too
holy shit burgers are next level retarded
>>80385368
BUT I THOUGHT I COULD TRUST WHATEVER A CALCULATOR SAYS
>>80385447
So you're saying that there are scientific calculators out there that display different results to an answer?
>>80380504
The correct answer is 16. Order of operations dictates that parentheses are calculated first. Then, multiplication and division in order left to right because they're communicable.
20 / 5 (2 x 2)
20 / 5 x (2 x 2)
20 / 5 x 4
4 x 4
16
>took math before every new fad except maybe Chicago Math
>>80385244
>(20/5)*(2*2), if you want 1, or 20/(5*(2*2)) if you want 16.
You wrote those the wrong way around. The first one equals 16 and the second one equals 1.
>>80385138
> then the 5, being in front of the parenthesis
What kind of shitty math is this?
>>80385166
Some shitty old calculators.
>>80385524
>calculators are not computers
>computers are not calculators
A fucking leaf.
>>80385575
Not really unless you know what you are doing
>>80385166
Let me use an example,
20
_____
5(2•2)
is the same thing as
20
_____ X (2•2)
5
That image has to be fake.
>>80385166
Two of your calculators are fucking broken. You should ask for your money back.
>>80385607
>>80385580
Yes.
And those are phsyical calculators operating on logic circuits, so they are a million times more trustworthy than some shitty app written in javascript like wolframalpha or google, where the weirdest shit can happen.
Seriously, what they're doing is literally just parsing the equation and that parser was written by humans, so we're back at square one.
>>80385701
>calculators are computers
not really
>>80379956
The problem with this question and all you retards who are feverishly trying to answer it is that the problem itself it ambiguously presented. Is the part in parentheses supposed to be multiplying the numerator or divisor?
>>80385591
Your logic falls apart when you add the 20 / 5 x (2 x 2)
In the first part of the equation is essentially written like 20/(5(2*2)).
the second way you write it is like (20/5)(2*2)
These are two separate equations and you are a fucking retard for not understanding notation
>>80379956
Math isn't physics. Axioms such as the square root of -1 being i is proof as long as there are no contradictions and everyone agrees, any definition is fine.
>>80385368
>>80385618
>>80385732
>>80385743
>Grouping symbols may include parentheses/brackets, such as () [] {}, and vincula (singular vinculum), such as the horizontal bar in a fraction or the horizontal bar extending over the contents of a radical.
>Implied multiplication (multiplication indicated by juxtaposition rather than an actual multiplication symbol) and the use of a / to indicate division often cause ambiguity (or at least difficulty in proper interpretation), as evidenced by the 48/2(9+3)48/2(9+3) or 48÷2(9+3)48÷2(9+3) meme. This is exacerbated by the existence of calculators (notably the obsolete Texas Instruments TI-81 and TI-85), which (at least in some instances) treated the / division symbol as if it were a vinculum, grouping everything after it.
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/36270/what-is-the-standard-interpretation-of-order-of-operations-for-the-basic-arithme
It can only be 1. If you are a retard you will say 16. They purposely made it ambiguous with the way the wrote the division sign though.
>>80379956
The operation in the brackets is completed before anything else. 2 x 2 = 4.
Then we go through the rest of the operations.
There are no indices, so we go to division. Twenty divided by five is four. Next is multiplication. Because there is now a four ahead of the bracketed operation (there should be a multiplication sign there for clarity) we multiply four by four.
BODMAS has been accepted practise in mathematics for years. That said, at primary level, the kids only need to learn how to actually do operations with numbers - let the intricacies of BODMAS and indices come in at secondary.
Is it any wonder kids don't enjoy maths when they get told that there are two answers and get told they're both right, and then are marked on the expectation they will know which one to go for?
Source: STEM student, 2nd year in uni
>>80385732
It is fake.
>>80385513
>Its really supposed to look like this
No it's not. It's supposed to be
20
----- *(2*2)
5
>>80385355
>>80385321
>>80385166
>Wolfram is the same as those shitty calculators, wich may have different configurations or you might even make pic related
Why are you trying to bait retards?
>>80386047
Yes, the obsolete calculators were not programmed properly. Modern TI calculators will get the problem right because that issue has been fixed.
>>80379956
Wasn't this image originally the other way around?
Technically if you follow proper syntax usage 5(2*2) is a polynomial. It is a singular mathematical entity in and of itself.
>>80379956
16 if you use real math
1 if you use fake math
>>80386213
Nope, by some conventions the / sign IS a vinculum and implies parentheses around the entire following term.
>>80386211
>Why are you trying to bait retards?
It is not bait. If you trust what any computer system outputs to you a priori, you are a creationist.
16
PEMDAS
20 / 5 (2 *2)
Parentheses first, so the (2 * 2) would be 4
20 / 5 * 4
Now since multiplication and division are on the same priority level, you'd go from left to right.
20 / 5 is 4
4 * 4 = 16
How the fuck do you get 1?
>>80386308
No. It's 16 if you're some faggot American retard who is paying 10000 dollars for a remedial math course in some over priced community college and you are trying to look smart on the internet.
It's 1 if you know how to syntax properly.
>>80386211
leave it to the taint of spain to fuck up math this simple
>>80381649
Math that I was taught back in high school had Multiplication occur before division and addition before subtraction.
That was before they decided (or I guess realised?) that multiplication is the same as division and addition is the same as subtraction only with different values (multiply by fractions and addition of negatives) But whatever.
Like I don't know how this is even a discussion, every serious mathematician in the world agrees that PEMDAS is a learning tool for children, not something you actually do math with.
There is a reason why the OP notation ought to be avoided. Kids should stop using PEMDAS as soon as division is introduced, BECAUSE it keeps fucking everything up.
There is no debate on the topic and the fact that you sad autist even argue about this propably means you're some basement dwelling high school dropout who hasn't seriously used math in a decade.
Go jack it to your anime figurines.
>>80385520
This is photoshoped you retard
>>80386359
The main reason to understand maths these days, in many fields, given how much we rely on computers to actually do the calculations, is to make sure we understand what we are telling the computer and what it is telling us. So you're absolutely right; only a mathematical illiterate automatically trusts computed outputs.
>>80386352
No. You are wrong. Show me a modern TI or Casio calculator that will get 1 as the answer.
>>80386211
Good job deleting the result and replacing it with a 5. This proves everything.
>>80386423
You fuckwits just don't know basic orders of operations.
/ = ÷
>>80386442
Your high school taught you wrong.
>>80386442
>Multiplication occur before division
>addition before subtraction
No. This is wrong. They occur at the same time.
>>80379956
20/ 5 (2 * 2)
20/ 5 (4)
20 (-5 * 4)
20 (-20)
20 + 20
= 40
>>80386416
20 / 5 (here is hidden X) (2*2)
20 / 5 x 4
so the equation can be both
20/20
or
4x4
i would say 1
>>80386159
Interesting, in the states we call it PEMDAS
>Parentheses
>Exponents
>Multiplication
>Division
>Add
>Subtract
>>80386047
So what? Regardless that equation means 20÷5•4 however you want to look at it. 20/5 is just 4, there are no parenthesis suggesting that it is 20/(5•4), because thats not how it is written, 5(4) is the same thing as 5•4. Ambiguity is caused because people don't know what the symbols mean.
>>80380263
American education
20 / 5 (2*2)
(2*2)= 4
20/ 5(4)
20/20
1
>>80386661
Why would you do 5 * 4 first? Multiplication and division goes from left to right with PEMDAS.
>>80386359
Not any. All.
>>80386423
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20%2F5*(2*2)
>>80386442
> had Multiplication occur before division
wat?
>>80386666
>we call it PEMDAS
the rest of the world calls it bedmas because () are not parenthesis, they are brackets. "" are parenthesis
Look everyone, the / between 20 and 5 can be viewed as a direct division of 20 or it can be viewed like this
20
------
5 (2*2)
That is how you both get 1 and 16, this photo-shopped picture is intentionally trying to upset you with vague equations with not enough information.
The only people objectively wrong here are people who think Multiplication comes before Division in all scenarios when it's actually PE(MD)(AS)
There is no "right" answer out of the two, you mongs. As everyone has identified, it's an issue with the order of operations. When there is confusion over the precise order (usually division or multiplication first), it is the fault of the questioner for not being clearer.
20/5(2*2) is ambiguous, either resulting in ...
20/20 = 1
or 4*4 = 16
As stated, the issue is clarification. Why go through the effort of putting 2*2 in parentheses, and nothing else? It's pointless and leaves it as ambitious as it would be without the parentheses:
20/5*2*2
A better way would be ..
(20/5)*(2*2) = 4 * 4 = 16
or
20/(5*2*2) = 20/20 = 1
I'll say it again, none of this is "breaking the rules of maths", no one of these answers are "wrong", the fault is entirely dependent on the ambiguity of the question and the way it's formatted. Stupid questions breed confusion.
>>80379956
2 * 2 = 4
20 / 5 = 4
4 * 4 = 16
It's 16
>>80386445
It is important because when someone writes a problem in a confusing manner, we have to have some convention for solving it. We can't always just go up and say "rewrite it". We have to know that every problem has 1 correct answer no matter how it is written. You are right that you should generally use parentheses to avoid misinterpretation, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't know how to this problem the correct way.
>>80380263
but it's BIDMAS
>>80386629
You don't use () to do basic arithmetic.
5(2*2) is a polynomial. Multiplication is implied by the parenthesis because it's a polynomial
If you were doing fag arithmetic you would type 5 * (2 * 2)
But that's not the case. So syntax is deliberately misused in the question because some fucking useless retard is trying to feel smart.
>>80386853
That honestly makes a lot of sense.
>>80386823
its 5(4)
>>80380642
If you go left to right after the parentheses you get 16. It all matters how you view pemdas and if you believe multiplication has importance over division.
>>80386905
>You are right that you should generally use parentheses to avoid misinterpretation
Fractions, but yeah.
And yes, ideally there was a perfect way to deal with OP's equation, but there isn't. In some contexts the slash (/) groups all polynoms behind it implicibly, in other contexts, it doesn't.
It literally is as ambigious as it gets. So the convention is: Don't use it. If you HAVE to write a simple division one liner, use ÷. It's not perfect, but atleast ÷ doesn't have a historical and cultural ambiguity.
>>80379956
>Slides class for 6 years kids.
>>80386984
5(2*2) = 20
5*(2*2) = 20
There is no difference i don't see your point,
what are these faggots doing to the math to get 1
>>80386881
In all honesty this bait thread was pretty funny. I have no idea who is fucking who.
>>80379956
its a dumb question that needs to be better defined, thsi fucking math is stupid
>>80386553
>implying I own babby's first calculator
I have a computer and all manner of useful software packages. I don't own any calculator like those.
>>80386732
When / is a vinculum, parentheses are implied on the following term. By that convention, 20 / 5 (2*2) is 20 / (5 (2*2)). Work on your reading comprehension, gayboy:
>Grouping symbols may include ... vincula
>the use of a / to indicate division ... treated the / division symbol as if it were a vinculum, grouping everything after it
>>80386853
() are parentheses. We always called "" dashes, not parentheses. Brackets are &&.
>>80380263
Brackets
Indices
Division
Multiplication
Addition
Subtraction
>>80386853
I thought those were quotations?
>"
>][
are brackets. Sometimes we would have Brackets on the outside if given a parenthesis inside a parenthesis
[5(4+3×7)-8]4
>>80386442
Division IS Multiplication, brah
>>80386881
The answer only ends up being one if you assume 20/(5•(2•2)).
That's not how it is written, so don't assume.
>>80387307
>() are parentheses. We always called "" dashes, not parentheses. Brackets are &&.
false
>>80387307
>When / is a vinculum
And what is the consensus amoung mathematicians?
>>80386823
also it is
20
------------
5(2x2)
20
----------- =1
5x4=20
>>80387307
/=÷
It implies the same fucking thing
>>80379956
20 / 5 (2*2)
20 / (5*2) (5*2)
20 / 10
2
>>80387286
On the one hand, I'm happy that there are so many asperger /pol/ users pointing out the BODMAS/PEDMAS fault, but every time I see a message like "what are these faggots doing to get 1?"/"that is obviously wrong", it's like a nail is being driven through my skull.
>>80387307
You're implying the slash is a vinculum, they are using the slash to represent a division symbol, the equation is 20÷5•4.
>>80387235
It ISNT ambiguous though, because we have the PEMDAS convention. This is necessary because we can't guarantee that everyone will always use parentheses or otherwise write an equation in a clear way, so we have created a convention to make sure the equation has only 1 legitimate interpretation.
>>80387235
You are so retarded. There is zero difference between the two symbols for division in a single line expression.
As I pointed out here >>80383984, fractions over fractions are in fact ambiguous unless you keep track of which bars take priority aka parentheses.
U
I love how you're still here playing the resident expert and yet you are so wrong about such basic math.
>>80379956
underage detected
this is not a fucking math board you summerfuck underaged cunt
>>>/sci/
>>80387473
/this
////////////PSA////////////PSA////////////PSA////////////PSA////////////
PRESSING ALT-0247 CREATES A ÷
////////////PSA////////////PSA////////////PSA////////////PSA////////////
>>80380642
>If you do it the old way, the answer is still 16.
Yup.
>>80387783
>>80387783
>>80387307
If the foward slash was to represent a vinculum it shoud been written as 20/(5•4). Just because there is a foward slash does not automatically imply it is a vinculum.
>>80387880
The only way to get 1 is if you add parenthesis in
20 / ((((5 (2*2))))))
Otherwise is just dumb. And you have no good reason to do it, only making the / the same as the fraction bar, wich is assuming alot
>>80379956
Could be either depending if it's
20 20
-------- or ----- (2*2)
5(2*2) 5
It's a problem with the way it was written, which is done by retards.
2 2 * 20 5 / = 16
Best thing poland ever came up with
>>80388243
Wew fuck
20
------
5(2x2)
or
20
---- (2x2)
5
>>80386899
This, 1ners always have to make up rules and shit to get 1 when the real answer is this simple.
>>80388319
>20
>------
>5(2x2)
Why do you assume this? What makes you think it's this way?
PEDMAS has and will always be the incorrect way to think.
Division is just multiplying by a fraction and subtraction is just adding a negative number. Multiplication and addition are always left to right.
PEDMAS will never generate the correct answer 100% of the time.
>>80388428
One is PEMDAS the other is BODMAS.
If people weren't fucking lazy to put a fucking dot or an extra pair of parentheses we wouldn't be discussing this shit.
>>80379956
Oldfag with a math degree here, so listen up
20 / 5 (2 * 2)
parentheticals get precedence
20 / 5 * 4
Multiplication and division have equal precedence so you work left to right
4 * 4
16
It's 16. The only way it could be one is by turning the entire denominator of that expression into a parenthetical, but the parenthetical precedence isn't automatically assigned to a value multiplied BY a parenthetical statement.
I have no idea what all these BEDMAS PEMDAS are whatever
But there is nothing implying that (2*2) is not part of the denominator, therefore the result is 1
Had you wanted 16 as the result this is what you need:
(20/5)(2*2)
>>80380263
That's what I though, but no, you do M first then D, L to R. Common Core is how they kill our future. The training to do work, rather than achieve results, pure communism. Work for the sake of valuing labour.
>>80380344
Putin should nuke them all. For a better world.
Jewmerica, not even once.
Amerikkka. Garbage.
Americans, Untermenschen.
I tried every way I knew and every time it is 16. What am I doing wrong?
>>80388759
Multiplication by zero is defined, division by zero is not
>>80379956
16 is the only right answer.
20/5*(2*2) = 20/5*4 = 20 * (1/5) * 4 = 20 * 4/5 = 16
>>80386922
Still gets the answer 16.
20/5(2*2)
becomes
20/5*4
which then becomes
4*4
which is 16.
>>80388879
>i have no idea how to math: the post
kill yourself
>>80388761
But they didn't put another parentesis, so it's wrong of you to assume
>>80389169
nothing. 16 is the correct answer
>>80388879
correct
>>80379956
multiplication and division are the same thing, they cannot and need not be ordered
it is always 16
>>80389842
No i's not. You are put parentesis out of nowhere in here:
20 /((((((((((((((((((( 5 (2*2))))))))))))))
