I’m well familiar with math and the rules by which it works. Those who persist in arguing the case here could save the rest of us the bother by admitting they were stumped by a simple gotcha equation and are embarrassed, rather than wasting everyone’s time by insisting that math is nothing but a lawless, rules-free wasteland where the answer to an equation depends on your feelings at the time.
Fortunately, the rules necessary to resolve the equation in this post are extremely elementary, so none of what you’re referencing has any bearing whatever.
There are exactly three things to consider in here to determine priority: parentheses, multiplication/division, and addition. The addition happens first due to the parentheses, and the remaining is evaluated left-to-right. The only correct answer here is 16.
All your deflection from your embarrassment at misreading a simple equation doesn’t detract from this.
Fortunately, the rules necessary to resolve the equation in this post are extremely elementary, so none of what you’re referencing has any bearing whatever.
this would be like trying to tell a chemical engineer they didn’t know what they were doing based on your understanding of the atom as a ball of protons with electrons wooshing round it like they were moons
very cute
unfortunately, if you give the expression 1 / 2x to anybody who knows what they’re doing they’ll interpret it as 1 / (2x) because it would be absurd not to
for reference, that’s why the calculator works like this. because it’s a tool designed primarily for people who actually know what they’re doing with numbers, so it works how they expect it to work
And there you’ve proven exactly what I’ve been saying all along. 2x works the way it does because there’s a variable involved, and natural reading of that treats it as a single entity. There are no variables in the equation in the post, there are only definite numbers, parentheses, and simple mathematical operations. 8/2(2+2) is nothing more than 8/2×(2+2). There is nothing special about 2(…, this is not the equivalent of 2x.
No, what I’m explaining to you is the facts behind what every calculator with any modicum of computing power will tell you, namely that 2(2+2) is identical to 2×(2+2).
Yeah, kind of. The crappier calculator is the one generating the incorrect answer. Any calculator with any real level of oomph behind it can parse this correctly to get the correct answer, 16.
no variables in the equation in the post, there are only definite numbers
Pronumerals literally stand in for numerals, and work exactly the same way. There is nothing special about choosing a pronumeral to represent a numeral.
8/2(2+2) is nothing more than 8/2×(2+2).
They’re completely different actually. 2(2+2) is a single term in the denominator, (2+2) - which you separated from the 2 with an x - is a now 3rd term which is now in the numerator, having been separated from the 2 which is in the denominator.
There is nothing special about 2(…, this is not the equivalent of 2x
I’m well familiar with math and the rules by which it works. Those who persist in arguing the case here could save the rest of us the bother by admitting they were stumped by a simple gotcha equation and are embarrassed, rather than wasting everyone’s time by insisting that math is nothing but a lawless, rules-free wasteland where the answer to an equation depends on your feelings at the time.
i know you won’t realise this because you never got past basic calculus, but this is a very funny statement to anybody that did
they know all the “math rules” guys. which ones? ALL of them
but okay these rules: where do they come from, then?
Fortunately, the rules necessary to resolve the equation in this post are extremely elementary, so none of what you’re referencing has any bearing whatever.
There are exactly three things to consider in here to determine priority: parentheses, multiplication/division, and addition. The addition happens first due to the parentheses, and the remaining is evaluated left-to-right. The only correct answer here is 16.
All your deflection from your embarrassment at misreading a simple equation doesn’t detract from this.
this would be like trying to tell a chemical engineer they didn’t know what they were doing based on your understanding of the atom as a ball of protons with electrons wooshing round it like they were moons
very cute
unfortunately, if you give the expression
1 / 2xto anybody who knows what they’re doing they’ll interpret it as1 / (2x)because it would be absurd not tofor reference, that’s why the calculator works like this. because it’s a tool designed primarily for people who actually know what they’re doing with numbers, so it works how they expect it to work
And there you’ve proven exactly what I’ve been saying all along. 2x works the way it does because there’s a variable involved, and natural reading of that treats it as a single entity. There are no variables in the equation in the post, there are only definite numbers, parentheses, and simple mathematical operations. 8/2(2+2) is nothing more than 8/2×(2+2). There is nothing special about 2(…, this is not the equivalent of 2x.
a natural reading of
2(2+2)treats it as the sameyou’re straight up just spouting contradictory nonsense now because you’ve realised your stance doesn’t make any sense, and i am very much here for it
No, what I’m explaining to you is the facts behind what every calculator with any modicum of computing power will tell you, namely that 2(2+2) is identical to 2×(2+2).
ah yes it’s the computing power that’s at issue here
Yeah, kind of. The crappier calculator is the one generating the incorrect answer. Any calculator with any real level of oomph behind it can parse this correctly to get the correct answer, 16.
Dude take it from someone with a maths degree. You’re entirely wrong and the answer is 1, being confidently incorrect is a bad look.
The first thing you do is resolve terms and 2(2+2) is one term and should be resolved first.
The answer is categorically not 16. It’s not a debate, it’s a question with a right answer, and yours isn’t it.
2(2+2) absolutely is an equivalent of 2x, where x=2+2
Just like 2(2+2) is also a single Term.
Pronumerals literally stand in for numerals, and work exactly the same way. There is nothing special about choosing a pronumeral to represent a numeral.
They’re completely different actually. 2(2+2) is a single term in the denominator, (2+2) - which you separated from the 2 with an x - is a now 3rd term which is now in the numerator, having been separated from the 2 which is in the denominator.
So what’s it equal to when x=2+2?