8/2(2+2)

Is the answer 1 or 16.

I'm leaning towards 1.

Blake, who really gives a fuck, well?

All those numbers reminded me of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azytHk0WBlY

Having a hard time tutoring your biracial child?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

Having a hard time tutoring your biracial child?

---

That was fucking stupid guy, TONS and TONS of biracial children out there, what a dumb thing to say.

Don't know if this is some kind of troll shit. But an equivalent expression is 8/2*(2+2) so the answer is 16.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100

Don't know if this is some kind of troll shit. But an equivalent expression is 8/2*(2+2) so the answer is 16.

---

I'm thinking someone fucked something up somewhere and this is calling them out in some way.

Meh if you want an interesting math question jump down the rabbit hole that is the axiom of choice. Or maybe how complicated the idea of infinity is mathematically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100

Don't know if this is some kind of troll shit. But an equivalent expression is 8/2*(2+2) so the answer is 16.

---

https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...m-2019-solved/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...m-2019-solved/

---

Hmm. I didn't realize that it's actually debatable.

Cuck thinks he found a conundrum. Cute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Johnny

That was fucking stupid guy, TONS and TONS of biracial children out there, what a dumb thing to say.

---

The joke is that it's not his child. It's his wife's that she made with her black lover on the side.

And yes the answer is 1. PEMDAS.

8
____________
2(2+2)

=

8
___________
2(4)

=

8
_
8


= 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

The joke is that it's not his child. It's his wife's that she made with her black lover on the side.

---

You and derp imagining black guy sex is a good one

its 16, and should be pretty unambiguous. trainwreck laid it out perfectly.

when you have 8/2*4, you dont arbitrarily decide to multiply the 2 with the 4. you go left to right when there is any ambiguity.

https://i.gyazo.com/a9959904f860bda8...36aea0f717.png

to me this just smells like the dumb facebook clickbait shit you'll see: "CAN YOU SOLVE THIS? ONLY 1 IN 50 ARE ABLE TO SEE IT!" and then its a basic order of operations issue

I hate to agree with him bc he's sick in the head and annoying, but Millennial Messiah is right.

The issue as I have come to conclude is the math problem would get thrown out of a test bc it's written ambiguously. You treat the bottom part of a division symbol as a denominator unless explicitly told otherwise.

There is a reason why after fifth grade they don't write that division symbol for questions like this in tests for any math class. They use the "/" fraction sign.
That's why the answer is 1.

So I guess you could say if the question is asked to a bunch of babies, the answer is 16, but if the question were asked to adults with decent math knowledge the answer is 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaMarcus Bryant

I hate to agree with him bc he's sick in the head and annoying, but Millennial Messiah is right.

The issue as I have come to conclude is the math problem would get thrown out of a test bc it's written ambiguously. You treat the bottom part of a division symbol as a denominator unless explicitly told otherwise.
That's why the answer is 1.

---

thats bullshit tbh... if you had 8/4+4, you dont naturally assume that its 8/8. you apply order of operations. if there were parentheses around the entire "denominator" only then do you reach that conclusion, as in 8/(2(2+2)). otherwise you make no such assumption. apply order of operations and move left to right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaMarcus Bryant

So I guess you could say if the question is asked to a bunch of babies, the answer is 16, but if the question were asked to adults with decent math knowledge the answer is 1.

---

if you agree with me you're an adult and if you disagree with me you're a bunch of babies

got it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

thats bullshit tbh... if you had 8/4+4, you dont naturally assume that its 8/8. you apply order of operations. if there were parentheses around the entire "denominator" only then do you reach that conclusion, as in 8/(2(2+2)). otherwise you make no such assumption. apply order of operations and move left to right

---

Did you go to a school that used the division symbol in math questions beyond jr high

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaMarcus Bryant

Did you go to a school that used the division symbol in math questions beyond jr high

---

yes. i also went to one that taught the order of operations

find a scientific calculator that will give you the result of 1 when you input the problem. i posted a snapshot above when i ran it through

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

yes. i also went to one that taught the order of operations

find a scientific calculator that will give you the result of 1 when you input the problem. i posted a snapshot above when i ran it through

---

:lol okkk
A nicer way of putting what I said earlier is that this question throws off people bc you typically don't see that division symbol in any math beyond jr high. At least not TYPICALLY. yes you go left to right and yes everyone knows order of operations. As it's written with that division sign yeah the answer would be 16. But it short circuits people's math bc you don't see division written that way without it being understood bottom part is a denominator once you get beyond basic arithmetic.

It's a question that would be a bonus question on a 4th or 5th grade math test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaMarcus Bryant

:lol okkk
A nicer way of putting what I said earlier is that this question throws off people bc you typically don't see that division symbol in any math beyond jr high. At least not TYPICALLY. yes you go left to right and yes everyone knows order of operations. As it's written with that division sign yeah the answer would be 16. But it short circuits people's math bc you don't see division written that way without it being understood bottom part is a denominator once you get beyond basic arithmetic.

It's a question that would be a bonus question on a 4th or 5th grade math test.

---

yeah but short of brackets you're not going to just assume that everything following a division sign is in the denominator

otherwise what is 8/4+4

do you just naturally assume that its 8/8 = 1? no

every calculator you use, including scientific/graphing ones are going to use the same division sign that you are complaining about. and they will all read the answer for this problem to be 16

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

yeah but short of brackets you're not going to just assume that everything following a division sign is in the denominator

otherwise what is 8/4+4

do you just naturally assume that its 8/8 = 1? no

---

After a certain point in math division is virtually always written as a fraction. So yeah, it's easy to understand why people would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

every calculator you use, including scientific/graphing ones are going to use the same division sign that you are complaining about. and they will all read the answer for this problem to be 16

---

Did not see a question using that symbol or of that ambiguous nature on the GRE and that is the comprehensive test of idiot-level math

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaMarcus Bryant

After a certain point in math division is virtually always written as a fraction. So yeah, it's easy to understand why people would.

---

ok but the division sign is still the input you would use on a graphing calculator. you would have to appropriately use parentheses to define what is or isn't in the denominator. short of that, you cant just assume that it is, and you apply the basic rules and move left to right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaMarcus Bryant

I hate to agree with him bc he's sick in the head and annoying, but Millennial Messiah is right.

The issue as I have come to conclude is the math problem would get thrown out of a test bc it's written ambiguously. You treat the bottom part of a division symbol as a denominator unless explicitly told otherwise.

There is a reason why after fifth grade they don't write that division symbol for questions like this in tests for any math class. They use the "/" fraction sign.
That's why the answer is 1.

---

The / sign doesn't make it any less ambiguous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

ok but the division sign is still the input you would use on a graphing calculator. you would have to appropriately use parentheses to define what is or isn't in the denominator. short of that, you cant just assume that it is, and you apply the basic rules and move left to right

---

Well yeah of course. But at what point in your math education are they going over this? Like I said baby level math. After a certain point you just read the division as a fraction, specifically to avoid mathematic semantic disagreements such as this.
Usage of the fraction would make crystal clear to the questioner and the test taker what the test is asking for. Which is why they use fractions in higher level math

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaMarcus Bryant

Well yeah of course. But at what point in your math education are they going over this? Like I said baby level math. After a certain point you just read the division as a fraction, specifically to avoid mathematic semantic disagreements such as this.
Usage of the fraction would make crystal clear to the questioner and the test taker what the test is asking for. Which is why they use fractions in higher level math

---

of course it would make it easier to see.

that doesn't mean you have an excuse to change the basic rules and declare that the actual answer is 1 because its an easy mistake to make. that still makes it a mistake

Everything below the / is a denominator

That's why nobody uses ÷ past like 4th grade.

8
__________

2(2+2)


Solve.

8÷2(2+2) = 16

8/2(2+2) = 1


Okay?

MM getting a W. Good for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chucho

MM getting a W. Good for him.

---

It's the standard :toast

Can't believe I agree with guitar brah :wtf

It should really be written as 8/(2(2+2))=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

It should really be written as 8/(2(2+2))=

---

In the calculator you always do that to guarantee the correct outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

It should really be written as 8/(2(2+2))=

---

Or (8/2)*(2+2).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Or (8/2)*(2+2).

---

The inner most parenthetical operation will be performed first in my illustration. Then the next parenthesis left. Then you have no parenthesis left so just do the last operation.

Yours is also correct in that either parenthetical can be performed first as long as you solve the remaining parenthetical next. And then carry out the last operation that has no parenthesis left. No parenthesis enclose another so Yep.

I will add that I hate square root signs because they might look like division.

so for me on this board, 9^(1/2) =3 or 9^(0.5) = 3

I also don’t like the integral sign because I simply can’t write it well. But it makes sense as a summation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

The inner most parenthetical operation will be performed first in my illustration. Then the next parenthesis left. Then you have no parenthesis left so just do the last operation.

Yours is also correct in that either parenthetical can be performed first as long as you solve the remaining parenthetical next. And then carry out the last operation that has no parenthesis left. No parenthesis enclose another so Yep.

---

The (2+2) is a distraction. The (2+2) in parentheses always gets done first. 8/2*4 is the ambiguity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

The (2+2) is a distraction. 8/2(2+2) = 8/2*4 is where the ambiguity comes in. The (2+2) in parentheses always gets done first.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Or (8/2)*(2+2).

---

That's how you get the 16

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

The inner most parenthetical operation will be performed first in my illustration. Then the next parenthesis left. Then you have no parenthesis left so just do the last operation.

Yours is also correct in that either parenthetical can be performed first as long as you solve the remaining parenthetical next. And then carry out the last operation that has no parenthesis left. No parenthesis enclose another so Yep.

I will add that I hate square root signs because they might look like division.

so for me on this board, 9^(1/2) =3 or 9^(0.5) = 3

I also don’t like the integral sign because I simply can’t write it well. But it makes sense as a summation.

---

Just use ∫ if you're using it on the computer... google is your friend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

Everything below the / is a denominator

That's why nobody uses ÷ past like 4th grade.

8
__________

2(2+2)


Solve.

---

Yep but this becomes Tedious.

8
_
2
_
2+2
_
2/3
_
(1/2)^(1/2)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

That's how you get the 16


Yes it is.


Just use ∫ if you're using it on the computer... google is your friend

---

K

but I do things with pencil and paper as I play in variable land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

I also don’t like the integral sign because I simply can’t write it well. But it makes sense as a summation.

---

You should study Japanese tbh. Nothing like drawing kanji such as 歳 (used for age)、龍 (dragon)、犠 (roughly sacrifice), 愛 (love) by hand. :lol

You're all fucking idiots, it's 64.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

You should study Japanese tbh. Nothing like drawing kanji such as 歳 (used for age)、龍 (dragon)、犠 (roughly sacrifice), 愛 (love) by hand. :lol

---

I have trouble printing the alphabet.

My Greek letters suck...

Hopeless.

16

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Meh if you want an interesting math question jump down the rabbit hole that is the axiom of choice. Or maybe how complicated the idea of infinity is mathematically.

---

the proof behind the 2nd infinity is one of my favorite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100

the proof behind the 2nd infinity is one of my favorite

---

Yeah the diagonal proof is fucking awesome. First saw it in Baby Rudin with sequences of 0 and 1, which also proved the segment [0,1] is uncountable when you consider binary representations of numbers. Sad that Cantor went nuts studying this shit.

it should be noted that for anyone reading the article both the mathematician and the theoretical physicist agree the answer is 16. The doctoral statistics student declined to answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Yeah the diagonal proof is fucking awesome. First saw it in Baby Rudin with sequences of 0 and 1, which also proved the segment [0,1] is uncountable when you consider binary representations of numbers. Sad that Cantor went nuts studying this shit.

---

you don't need the diagonal proof to prove 2 infinities.

The natural numbers N are considered "countable" while the R real numbers are not. N goes to infinity but so does R so because one is countable and one isn't there must be two different infinities. Countable infinity and not countable.

I'll be damn, and all this time I really did think nobody here actually knew anything, yep.....wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100

you don't need the diagonal proof to prove 2 infinities.

The natural numbers N are considered "countable" while the R real numbers are not. N goes to infinity but so does R so because one is countable and one isn't there must be two different infinities. Countable infinity and not countable.

---

Still, the diagonal proof is the most cool proof I have seen that R is uncountable. The least interesting one is (0,1) has nonzero measure while the measure of a countable set is 0, hence (0,1) is uncountable, hence R is since you can define a bijective map (0,1) -> R... eg like f(x) = tan[pi*(x+1/2)].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Still, the diagonal proof is the most cool proof I have seen that R is uncountable. The least interesting one is (0,1) has nonzero measure while the measure of a countable set is 0, hence (0,1) is uncountable, hence R is since you can define a bijective map (0,1) -> R... eg like f(x) = tan[pi*(x+1/2)].

---

are you talking straight diagonal set proof or the corollary one which is the decimal version. The decimal version is my favorite, because of how simple it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100

are you talking straight diagonal set proof or the corollary one which is the decimal version. The decimal version is my favorite, because of how simple it is.

---

Same shit, either one works for me. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100

it should be noted that for anyone reading the article both the mathematician and the theoretical physicist agree the answer is 16. The doctoral statistics student declined to answer.

---

If you can't agree, or you agree on a different set of symbol rules.
Because it's simply a symbol and a rule of symbols problem.

Its really not some astounding idea.
Like zero or infinity are... that help solve other sticky ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

The (2+2) is a distraction. The (2+2) in parentheses always gets done first. 8/2*4 is the ambiguity.

---

its not ambiguous though. when there's a lack of parenthesis, you go left to right. if they wanted to put the 4 in the denominator, it would be 8/(2*4). if they didnt, they wouldn't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100

it should be noted that for anyone reading the article both the mathematician and the theoretical physicist agree the answer is 16. The doctoral statistics student declined to answer.

---

most importantly the lawyer said its 16

Andy's W is rescinded and given to the Lawyer in North Carolina.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Johnny

Blake, who really gives a fuck, well?

All those numbers reminded me of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azytHk0WBlY

---

Larry, the Ghetto Pedo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chucho

Andy's W is rescinded and given to the Lawyer in North Carolina.

---

Virginia tbh

16. Why the fuck would it be 1? :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

16. Why the fuck would it be 1? :lol

---

because they are treating 8/2*2 and 8/4. for some reason deciding to go right to left for one step :lol

next they'll tell you 6-4 = -2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaMarcus Bryant

So I guess you could say if the question is asked to a bunch of babies, the answer is 16, but if the question were asked to adults with decent math knowledge the answer is 1.

---

Imagine trying to act like smart-ass but coming up as just an ass. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

8÷2(2+2) = 16

8/2(2+2) = 1


Okay?

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

8÷2(2+2) = 16

8/2(2+2) = 1


Okay?

---

this was literally the most retarded comment in the thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

this was literally the most retarded comment in the thread

---

I like the "Okay?" at the end. Old Pedo does that time to time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

its 16, and should be pretty unambiguous. trainwreck laid it out perfectly.

when you have 8/2*4, you dont arbitrarily decide to multiply the 2 with the 4. you go left to right when there is any ambiguity.

https://i.gyazo.com/a9959904f860bda8...36aea0f717.png

to me this just smells like the dumb facebook clickbait shit you'll see: "CAN YOU SOLVE THIS? ONLY 1 IN 50 ARE ABLE TO SEE IT!" and then its a basic order of operations issue

---

And this is the real issue if you wanted everyone to get it correct and not become a thing. You would not use the / division symbol. You would use the dot above a horizontal line with a dot below a horizontal line symbol. And I cant even make one of those with my keyboard (unless I guess I look up holding weird keys down while typing in....)

Press and hold alt while pressing 2 4 6

And I cant do this as I dont have a numeric keyboard in front of me.
Damn this is leading to some major suckage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

And this is the real issue if you wanted everyone to get it correct and not become a thing. You would not use the / division symbol. You would use the dot above a horizontal line with a dot below a horizontal line symbol. And I cant even make one of those with my keyboard (unless I guess I look up holding weird keys down while typing in....)

---

but the / division symbol and the dots with line mean exactly the same thing. its different if it was written in a vertical fraction form, but here it isn't. you cant assume that parentheses are implied or else it all falls apart

if i said 8/4-2 how would you proceed? you'd use the order of operations and go 4-2 = 2. you wouldn't go 8/2 = 4

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/s...as-bedmas.html

Spurraider does in fact get the w

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

but the / division symbol and the dots with line mean exactly the same thing. its different if it was written in a vertical fraction form, but here it isn't. you cant assume that parentheses are implied or else it all falls apart

if i said 8/4-2 how would you proceed? you'd use the order of operations and go 4-2 = 2. you wouldn't go 8/2 = 4

---

Yes it does.

So why are there two symbols for division linearly?

And why are there 2 symbols and one implied for multiplication?

x * a(b) or a x b and by the way this also means a as a function of b.

I also found where that calculator picture came from and the video.
My contention is still the same.

How come this became a thing? Because of mistakes. why? the author of the video wants to know.
The author says something about text(s) using this incorrectly and to notify him. So its really kind of cool.

People don't solve left to right for some reason and get weird answers, tbh. I made the mistake as a kid, but any educated adult should have corrected the habit by now :lol

There is more to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaitsBUyiNQ

Blake typing the / instead of the symbol with the two dots above and below the line imo caused the confusion on this board, and this was not even the internet form. so now I am really curious after the video and the way some calculators work.

I think this is what got M and M.... mostly because of the /
...and got me wondering. About linear and fractional forms.

I think M and M gets it correct if the dot above and below the horizontal line is used.
Lets see what he thinks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

There is more to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaitsBUyiNQ

Blake typing the / instead of the symbol with the two dots above and below the line imo caused the confusion on this board, and this was not even the internet form. so now I am really curious after the video and the way some calculators work.

I think this is what got M and M.... mostly because of the /
...and got me wondering. About linear and fractional forms.

I think M and M gets it correct if the dot above and below the horizontal line is used.
Lets see what he thinks...

---

Man when an Ivy League professor lays it out in the NYT, that's pretty much it for me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

8÷2(2+2) = 16

8/2(2+2) = 1


Okay?

---

Forget my previous message.
His own post makes it clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

Yes it does.

So why are there two symbols for division linearly?

And why are there 2 symbols and one implied for multiplication?

x * a(b) or a x b and by the way this also means a as a function of b.

I also found where that calculator picture came from and the video.
My contention is still the same.

How come this became a thing? Because of mistakes. why? the author of the video wants to know.
The author says something about text(s) using this incorrectly and to notify him. So its really kind of cool.

---

i agree that the author was sloppy (likely intentionally) but that doesn't mean there isn't a correct way to approach it. its completely absurd to assume that everything after the / is in the denominator. consider the expression:

2*4+1-3/4+7*2-6*8*3

do you actually assume that the entire bolded section is just a huge denominator? there's a reason why parentheses are used, and if you've ever had to input a reasonably long function into a TI83 or 89 calculator, you had to be very precise with parentheses placement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

its not ambiguous though. when there's a lack of parenthesis, you go left to right. if they wanted to put the 4 in the denominator, it would be 8/(2*4). if they didnt, they wouldn't

---

If you're a computer programmer that's a great way to get bugs in your program that might only show up years later when you're relying on undefined behavior that can change later on when some other part of your library's implementation has changed. Or maybe your compiler changed. The only reasonable way to write those expressions would be (8/2)(2+2) or 8/(2(2+2)).

Folks emphasizing the ambiguity of the equation are just trying to rationalize the fact they didn't get the answer right, tbh. :lol

Just give it a rest. There's only one right answer, you didn't get it. It's not the end of the World.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

8
____________
2(2+2)

=

8
___________
2(4)

=

8
_
8


= 1

---

There's an argument that it could be 1. Especially if you look at it the way Andy did^. That's how I first looked at it too.

I hate when the internet thinks dumb stuff like this is cute though. Just use the appropriate parentheses to make it clear or GTFO.

i.e. 8/[2(2+2)] or (8/2)(2+2)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FkLA

I hate when the internet thinks dumb stuff like this is cute though. Just use the appropriate parentheses to make it clear or GTFO.

i.e. 8/[2(2+2)] or (8/2)(2+2)

---

this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

consider the expression:

2*4+1-3/4+7*2-6*8*3

do you actually assume that the entire bolded section is just a huge denominator?

---

No. Addition has lower precedence than division does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

i agree that the author was sloppy (likely intentionally) but that doesn't mean there isn't a correct way to approach it. its completely absurd to assume that everything after the / is in the denominator. consider the expression:

2*4+1-3/4+7*2-6*8*3

do you actually assume that the entire bolded section is just a huge denominator?

---

agree And...

I just did this my wife and she said both. Yes she can see it as a huge denominator. I said why?, she said math books.

So Im thinking you will rarely see your form in a math book and if you do...

2*4+1-3 dot over dash under dot 4+7*2-6*8*3 for clarity that we are testing just your numerical endurance


And if you really wanted to divide make the whole thing which one?

2*4+1-3 dot line dot (4+7*2-6*8*3) very rare

2*4+1-3/(4+7*2-6*8*3) common

this is my working hypothesis using my partner as the sole human subject.
If you watch the video, I think we on this site just added something by just using / Blake did it because he did not make dot dash over dot
Your fault Blake you see what you wrought?

I think more people get it wrong with / rather that dot dash over dot
Not discussed in the video. Need to get this to a math teacher who works with real kids.
Not an adult who acts like a kid (me)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

this.

---

You just know it's the people that never did much maths that turn it into a big deal, tbh. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FkLA

You just know it's the people that never did much maths that turn it into a big deal, tbh. :lol

---

I should have never got drawn into this stupid thread. :lol

Though talking with trainwreck was interesting and made me go back and read Cantor's diagnolization proof again since it's one of the coolest pieces of mathematics ever written. If you ever want to see an interesting development of the real numbers Baby Rudin is a really cool book, though challenging as hell since he writes everything as slickly as possible and doesn't use any diagrams. Plus the exercises are really hard. Terry Tao has some lecture notes he posted where he very carefully constructs the reals starting from only the Peano axioms for his real analysis class (wish he was teaching it when I took the class). Or it might be a textbook now.

I find it interesting.

It provides some insight.

People think a / automatically implies a fraction.
Numerator everything to the left, denominator everything to the right.
Possible because of the problem of type being more difficult to put things on the top and the bottom.

a/b

a
--
b

Now

2*4+1-3/4+7*2-6*8*3

Ask someone to read this in English.
When they get to the one... Do the say "one minus three divided by four", or "one minus three fourths"?
It works out the same, but if there is other crap around and its vertical and linear, especially with parenthesis and brackets, you gots to be careful.
I dont even know if parenthesis and brackets are the correct terms in math.

It’s the P in Pemdas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I should have never got drawn into this stupid thread. :lol

Though talking with trainwreck was interesting and made me go back and read Cantor's diagnolization proof again since it's one of the coolest pieces of mathematics ever written. If you ever want to see an interesting development of the real numbers Baby Rudin is a really cool book, though challenging as hell since he writes everything as slickly as possible and doesn't use any diagrams. Plus the exercises are really hard. Terry Tao has some lecture notes he posted where he very carefully constructs the reals starting from only the Peano axioms for his real analysis class (wish he was teaching it when I took the class). Or it might be a textbook now.

---

I was fucking shocked that M M was so confident in his answer and then someone my man LaMarcus Bryant agreed with him. The argument for it doesn't even make sense.

When a large number of people get something wrong it is possibly a symbol problem, and or the rules thereof.

I remember speaking to a kid doing physics and helping him.
And I understood why he messed up:

x(t) = Vo*t + 1/2gt^2

I asked him to read it in english.

He said:

x times time equals initial velocity times time plus one half times time times the acceleration due to gravity times t squared

Instead of x as a function of time...

He explained the parenthesis (pedemas) meant multiply by...

I was shocked, BUT it made sense. And I learned something. The poor kid must have been driven nuts.
And he did not say velocity times zero, he understood the o was a subscript.

8/2(2+2) = cucked

^ so angry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

^ so angry

---

:lmao you responded, so confirmed... triggered :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

:lmao you responded, so confirmed... triggered :lol

---

Oh ok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

Oh ok

---

10 times more posts :lol no life

I learned something about people and symbols yet again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

8÷2(2+2) = 16

8/2(2+2) = 1


Okay?

---

That still doesn't make sense if your going by PEMDAS ....

8÷2(2+2) ---> PEMDAS Parenthesis 2+2 = 4 PEMDAS

8÷2(4) ----> PEMDAS Multiplication 2(4) = 8

8÷8 = 1 PEMDAS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

10 times more posts :lol no life

---

Oh post counting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Celibate

That still doesn't make sense if your going by PEMDAS ....

8÷2(2+2) ---> PEMDAS Parenthesis 2+2 = 4 PEMDAS

8÷2(4) ----> PEMDAS Multiplication 2(4) = 8

8÷8 = 1 PEMDAS

---

I was confused by this in like the 6th grade, tbh. Multiplication and Division are on the same hierarchy so you go from left to right, same with addition and subtraction

https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/im...as-diagram.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mitch

I was confused by this in like the 6th grade, tbh. Multiplication and Division are on the same hierarchy so you go from left to right, same with addition and subtraction

https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/im...as-diagram.png

---

:lol I’m aware of the actual rule just calling out Andrew’s retarded logic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Celibate

:lol I’m aware of the actual rule just calling out Andrew’s retarded logic

---

:tu

Can't really expect much from Andy, tbh