Can you solve 8÷2(2+2)

[jamil]

There's a reason maths is done

8
---------
2(2+2)

I dont think ÷ is seen past 5th grade

I think you’re right. The ÷ confuses people.

The notation, 8 ÷ 2 (2 + 2) is just one term after evaluating the contents of the parentheses. Someone mentioned distributive property. Not that you’d bother distributing with literals like this, but distributing the 2 into the (2+2) would be incorrect here. You can’t separate 2(2+2) into a separate term. Perhaps mentally, the ÷ looks like a + so you think the 2(2+2) should be evaluated as a separate term.

It sort of underscores the ambiguity in adapting a qwerty keyboard to write math notation. We’re writing the expression inline. In our minds, if we use the / instead of ÷, it seems like 8 / 2(2+2) means you’re saying there are indeed two terms, 8, over 2(2+2). But type 8/2(2+2) into google and you get the correct answer, 16. The computer interprets inline, in order of operations. If you mean the other when typing inline, you have to explicitly state it as 8/(2(2+2)).

Incidentally, you could use distribution to evaluate the expression:

8 ÷ 2 (2+2) could be rewritten as
(8÷2)(2+2) so distributing,
4(2+2) you get
8+8 which is
16

 

[jamil]

So why isn't 2 the coefficient of 2(2+2), shouldn't the general form give the same answer as the specific if PEDMAS is the only thing that needs to be taken into consideration? 2(2+2) is one term that needs to be completely simplified before proceeding to divide

Jetta is the rightest poster, it is sloppy to write the expression with ambiguity and the author needs a dope slap

Because as I said above, 2(2+2) isn’t a separate term. You can’t leave the 8 off of that, because 8 ÷ 2 have to be evaluated in the order written left to right. You could say (8÷2) is a coefficient of (2+2) be because * and ÷ have the same priority in order of operation. That’s what allowed me to distribute that into (2+2).

And it’s not ambiguous. Type that expression into google. Excel. Execute it in C, Java, whatever. It’s not ambiguous. It’s consistent.

If you’re gonna write stuff inline, / doesn’t imply everything after it is a separate term. If you want it to be, enclose it with parentheses. Or use matlab so that you can write out expressions like we’d write them by hand.

 

[Alpo]

And we wonder why Hubble needed focal plane revisions.

Using parentheses to expressly state what you mean would avoid error and discussions such as these.

I'm waiting for the conversation to get around to RPN and Hewlett-Packard stacks.

 

[jamil]

And we wonder why Hubble needed focal plane revisions.

Using parentheses to expressly state what you mean would avoid error and discussions such as these.

I'm waiting for the conversation to get around to RPN and Hewlett-Packard stacks.

Oh, man do I miss my ho 15c. That thing was awesome. Best calculator ever.

 

[Snapdragon]

But once you introduce variable terms, the coefficient and the variable become one unit that you cannot separate willy-nilly. 6/2x is not (six divided by two) times x, or 3x, because you cannot separate the 2 from the x and only divide by the 2 (unless it specifically says (6/2)x. 6/2x is 6 divided by the 2x term, which we can simplfy to 3/x. Whole different ball game. Order of operations is still followed, but variable terms hold together as one unit unless there is a multiplication operator between the number and the variable. In this case, the number ceases to act as the coefficient because in the expression 6/2*x, the coefficient of x is 1.

Woke up at 4am wanting to do some more digging into this. There are actually two schools of thought. Tried entering 6/2x into several online expression evaluators and got answers of both 3x and 3/x. Some sources automatically divided the 6 by the 2 first, and some assumed the / to be a fraction bar and put 6 in the numerator and the 2x term in the denominator as I did. Parentheses around the 6/2 or the 2x would clarify things in this case.

 

[femurphy77]

If it hasn't already been stated the answer.is 42. It took Deep Thought 2.3 million years to determine, INGO isn't going to.do it in a weekend.

 

[Alpo]

If it hasn't already been stated the answer.is 42. It took Deep Thought 2.3 million years to determine, INGO isn't going to.do it in a weekend.

The universe will be in balance when:

watches

 

[rhino]

Re-write as 8 * 1/2 * (2+2). Then the order doesn't matter.

Well played, sir.

 

[rhino]

It's a trick, and the whole point of writing it that way is to just trip people up. No one, when figuring out an actual problem, would write it like that. Instead of 8/2, they would simply write 4. ORRRR

They would write (8 * (2+2))/2 As that is much more logical.

It's a gotcha question that has absolutely nothing to do with real life, or actual mathematics.

Unless . . . it's an assessment of order of operations mastery.

 

[rhino]

Woke up at 4am wanting to do some more digging into this. There are actually two schools of thought. Tried entering 6/2x into several online expression evaluators and got answers of both 3x and 3/x. Some sources automatically divided the 6 by the 2 first, and some assumed the / to be a fraction bar and put 6 in the numerator and the 2x term in the denominator as I did. Parentheses around the 6/2 or the 2x would clarify things in this case.

I always use parentheses (just in case) when I am using tools like Wolframalpha.

 

[Ruger_Ronin]

I dun told that teaching lady the only math I need is 5.56x45='Murica. Keep your commie pemdas Ivan. (I also concluded 16)

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

 

[chipbennett]

This is on INGO, too?

The problem is intentionally written in a semantically ambiguous manner.

This, as written:

8 ÷ 2(X)

Is intentionally not written as this:

8 ÷ 2 * (X)

Therefore, it is implied that the problem itself is not the same. It implies that the ÷ operator is not intended to be treated the same as 2(X) and it is reasonable to assume that 2(X) is intended to be a single operand.

Ergo, 1 is equally correct an answer as 16.

The only correct answer is that the person who wrote the problem is a douche, and should rewrite it to eliminate the semantic ambiguity.

 

[jamil]

This is on INGO, too?

The problem is intentionally written in a semantically ambiguous manner.

This, as written:

8 ÷ 2(X)

Is intentionally not written as this:

8 ÷ 2 * (X)

Therefore, it is implied that the problem itself is not the same. It implies that the ÷ operator is not intended to be treated the same as 2(X) and it is reasonable to assume that 2(X) is intended to be a single operand.

Ergo, 1 is equally correct an answer as 16.

The only correct answer is that the person who wrote the problem is a douche, and should rewrite it to eliminate the semantic ambiguity.

Who said you get to treat the 2(x) part as a separate term?

But. I agree it was written in a confusingly inconsistent way. If you’re gonna use ÷, then don’t imply multiplying the 2 bt (2+2). It’s indeed a douchebag trick question.

 

[Hoosier Carry]

This is on INGO, too?

The problem is intentionally written in a semantically ambiguous manner.

This, as written:

8 ÷ 2(X)

Is intentionally not written as this:

8 ÷ 2 * (X)

Therefore, it is implied that the problem itself is not the same. It implies that the ÷ operator is not intended to be treated the same as 2(X) and it is reasonable to assume that 2(X) is intended to be a single operand.

Ergo, 1 is equally correct an answer as 16.

The only correct answer is that the person who wrote the problem is a douche, and should rewrite it to eliminate the semantic ambiguity.

Well said. I see both sides as well.

I still believe that 2(x) is number that is meant to be completed before working the problem out left to right.

I hope someone doesn’t cry about my post! It’s all in fun!

 

[jamil]

Well said. I see both sides as well.

I still believe that 2(x) is number that is meant to be completed before working the problem out left to right.

I hope someone doesn’t cry about my post! It’s all in fun!

Why would anyone cry about your post? You being wrong isn’t a reason for anyone to cry.

 

[jamil]

Everyone agrees that we should evaluate the parentheses first.

8 ÷ 2(2+2)

after you evaluate the parentheses, how many terms do you see in that expression? If you say 2, a large nun with a German accent will smack your knuckles with a ruler until they bleed..

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Everywhere I look, I'm finding two types of people:

1. People that get it correct.
2. People that get it incorrect, or think both answers are correct, and get salty over how it's written (it's written perfectly fine), and want to change it to change the answer.

This is consistent over all platforms.

 

[Dead Duck]

There are other ways to get salty...

 

[deo62]

Everywhere I look, I'm finding two types of people:

1. People that get it correct.
2. People that get it incorrect, or think both answers are correct, and get salty over how it's written (it's written perfectly fine), and want to change it to change the answer.

This is consistent over all platforms.

LOL! In this day and age, they can’t even agree that there’s two types of people!

 

[Hoosier Carry]

Why would anyone cry about your post? You being wrong isn’t a reason for anyone to cry.

That’s it! I’m going home....and taking my ball with me.