5.

5

17

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=16%2F2%5B8-3%284-2%29%5D%2B1

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
4 +1
5

Y/N? Did I get my BODMAS wrong?

5 as well.

If you don't get 5, please go back to elementary.

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

>>19610779
Uncanny.

>>19610738
i hate when faggots post this kinda shit using the wrong sintax just to confuse people. fucking retards... no one uses that goddamn division symbol ANYWHERE.

die you piece of shit.

I got 5, but im unsure

what do the brackets specify?

>>19610794
wut?

it's 5

/thread

>>19610794
It's called an obelus and it's fully correct, standardized and the Unicode implements it as reference division symbol.

I think you need to cry harder.

16 ÷ 2[8 - 3(2)] + 1
16 ÷ 2[8 - 6] + 1
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1
8[2] + 1
16 + 1
17

5.

PEMDAS, Motherfucks... with the addition of the brackets taking precedence.

>>19610794
>Complains about syntax but can't even spell it.
So when does high school start?

nine

17
All you niggers who say 5 are just plain dumb.

Fuck you OP, watch this then go away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-e8fzqv3CE

that's why no one uses the fucking vague division symbol

>>19610839

Yes. I'm not a mathematician or anything that makes 300,000 dollars a year. Did you ever get passed basic calculus?

>>19610839

No.

>>19610771
BODMAS???? what the hell is that? We always got taught BIMDAS (brackets, indices, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction).
Either way the answer is 5.

Add some variables into these questions and make them a bit fun

17

For it to be 5, there has to be another set of braces around '2[8-3(4-2)].'

16/2[8-3(4-2)]+1 == 16 / 2 * [8 - 3 * (4 - 2) ] + 1 == 8 * [ 8 - 3 * 2] + 1 == 8 * 2 + 1 == 16 + 1 == 17

>>19610932

Protip, addition and subtraction are the same thing
Protip 2, multiplication and division are the same thing.

Now go back to class you underage b&

>>19610924
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops.htm

If you are unsure about dividing or multiplying go from left to right.

You would divide 16 by 2 and then multiply that by 2 and get 16. Add 1 and you get 17.

>>19610900

0/10.

>>19610953

2 is still in a bracket, therefore you multiply it.

16/2[2]+1
16/4+1
4+1
5

>>19610947
>==
lol

it's 17

stop being niggers

>>19610998

WolframAlpha's answer is 5, so it's 5.

>>19610839 here
For all you dumb pieces of shit who can't into math:
Order of operations says parentheses, exponents, (division, multiplication), (addition, subtraction)
16 ÷ 2[8 - 3(4-2)] + 1
Inner parentheses first
16 ÷ 2[8 - 3(2)] + 1
16 ÷ 2[8 - 6] + 1
16 ÷ 2[2] + 1
NOW THIS IS WHERE ALL OF YOU WHO SAID 5 SCREW IT THE FUCK UP
THE ABOVE IS EQUIVALENT TO
16 ÷ 2*2 + 1
SO THEN
8*2 + 1
16 + 1
17
Case fucking closed.

It's 81.

>>19610973

At that stage it's more like:

16 / 2 * 2 + 1

Why?

It's not 16 / [2 [2]] +1

What do you do for a living? If CS, you're shit.

5

>>19611003

It's bad notation. Stop being niggers.

It's like constructing a garden-path sentence in English.

5

((16 / 2) * (8 - (3 * (4 - 2)))) + 1 = 17

>16/2[8-3(4-2)]+1
>16/2[8-3(2)]+1
>16/2[8-(6)]+1
>16/2[2]+1
>8[2]+1
>16+1
>17

fuck you guys
16 / 2[8 - 3(4 - 2)] + 1
16 / 2[8 - 3(2)] + 1
16 / 2[8 - 6] + 1
16 / 2[2] + 1
8[2] + 1
16 + 1
17

LEARN TO FUCKING ORDER OF OPERATIONS

I got 17. I'm feeling really doubtful right now

I got 17.

>>19610973
Brackets only apply to the values within them.

5

>>19611049
Also, note that:

a ÷ bc = a ÷ (bc)
 while
a ÷ b × c = (a ÷ b) × c

somehow I got 13, I think I'm unlucky

>People getting 5
Sure is 5th grade in here.

>>19611003

Google says it's 17.

>WolframAlpha
>Alpha

>Not even Beta
>Valid
Nope.

>>19610948
So....
4 + 5 = 9
4 - 5 = 9

4 x 5 = 20
4 / 5 = 20

It's right because addition and subtraction are the sane thing, and multiplication and division are the same thing.

>>19611013
Please excuse my dear aunt sally

Parentheses exponents multiplication divide add subtract.

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

I just put the 2 back in the brackets, answer is 5

>>19611088
Hahaha, oh wow. You can't be any older than 12.

i feel sorry for the tards that think it's 17 instead of 5.

can't even into PEMDAS.

>>19611019
>What do you do for a living? If CS, you're shit.


Medicine.

>Post on /sci/
>Guaranteed 150 replies.

This fucking thread, again...

>>19611103
>Doesn't know how the bracket rules actually work

>>19611088

He was talking about precedence and how you should go from left to right when deciding between multiplying or dividing and adding or subtracting. Retard.

>>19611101
Protip: Multiplication is derived from addition.

Addition is derived from equation.

Equation can be derived from zero.

Zero can be derived from nothing.

Everything can be derived from nothing.

So arguing about semantics is meaningless in the first place.

>>19611088

No you fucking reject.

division is multiplication by reciprocal
subtraction is addition of the number multiplied by negative one.

You're a retard.

>>19611097
all you who think its 17 tell me whats wrong with that?

>>19611139
You're putting things from outside brackets into brackets when you shouldn't be.

niggas the answer is ten

>>19611147
why 2(x+y) is the same thing as 2x+2y

>>19611165
Because by putting them in the brackets you're going against the rules of BEDMAS.

I guess this depends on whether your order of operations say whether multiplication or division comes first. I was always taught multiplication is executed before division. I see that others have it the other way around.
For me the answer is 5.

>>19611164

>getting an answer which is not either one people ITT are debating about

Confirmed for absolutely brain-dead.

>>19611131
Do note that the reciprocal is defined in terms of division (1/x).

In fact, it's safer to say that multiplication is derived from divison, and addition is derived from subtraction.

Observe:

10 × 5 = 10 ÷ (1 ÷ 5)
10 + 5 = 10 - (0 - 5)

The same can not be done the other way around.

Oh bugger, not this one again, it's full of ambiguity about the implied multiply-sign after the first 2. As a human, I'd say it is 5, because I group the 2 with the following bracket, but strictly spoken, it's 17, because even if there's no space between the 2 and the bracket, there's a multiply sign, which means 16 / 2 * bracket is the right way of calculating this, so 17 is the most correct answer.

// 17

>>19611165
The question is:

8 / 2(x+y) = 4(x+y)
or
8 / 2(x+y) = 8 / (2x+2y)

the issue is:
16/2[2]+1
Now according to PEMDAS
it would be 2*2 which is 4
Then 16/4=4
and last 4+1=5
Someone explain to me how im wrong because to me this looks fine?

>>19611180
In order of operations multiplication and division are of equal relevancy, as they are mathematically equivalent.

You parse them left to right.

>>19611197
see >>19611049

This is the way it's always been by default, since implicit multiplication has higher precedence than explicit division. See also: >>19611077

If your calculator fails to get the answer to this, get a better calculator (or learn2elementaryarithmetic).

Wolfram says it's 5.

>>19611197
It's not a question. The question is, why you start doing the second dot-operation first instead of doing the first, as they're on the same level and thus calculating from left to right is the rule to apply.

>>19611223
Your input is not equivalent to OP’s expression.

>>19611203
>Someone explain to me how im wrong because to me this looks fine?
Division and multiplication are evaluated left to right, one doesn't take precedence over the other.

BEDMAS and BEMDSA are both technically correct, one is just more pronounceable.

>>19611104
>>19611223

These. You can rewrite the equation with the 16 as the numerator and everything else in the denominator except for the addition of 1.

>>19611217
>This is the way it's always been by default
Yes, but this is something that is not explicitly written down as a rule.

It is open to re-interpretation, and thus although I personally say that 5 would be the answer, I must agree that 17 is equally valid, since the X/Y[Z] is ambiguous.

>>19611242

You're a retard. You memorize rules of thumb without recognizing why they are there and when to discard them when the mathematical sentence is written badly.

You have failed at life.

>>19611181
>implying that only because he is the only one to come up with that answer = hes wrong

I got 5

WolframAlpha got 5

It has to be five, and anyone else who says otherwise is a troll.

>>19611272
Your input to Wolfram alpha is erroneous. Also you are dumb.

5 and 17 are both correct.

Implicit multiplication precedence is not and has never been universally agreed upon.

>>19611131
>>19611119

Ok well fair enough then. What he meant to say is that addition and subtraction are the same order of operation, and multiplication and division are the same order of operation.
They most certainly are not the same fucking thing.

#python
a=16
s=2
d=8
f=3
g=4
h=2
j=1

crap = a / s * ( d - f * (g - h)) + j

print crap

>D:\Desktop\Python>python simplify.py
>17

So is this a troll question with two correct answers?

http://www.algebra.com/algebra/homework/equations/Equations.faq.question.68018.html

>>19611272
I got 5. Wolframalpha got 5.

But people who say 17 have a point. X/Y[Z] is ambiguous.

>>19611013
>>19611013
>>19611013
>>19611013
>>19611013
>>19611013
>>19611013
>>19611013
This, it's fucking 17

YOU CANT FUCKIN MULTIPLY 2[2] before you divide 16 by 2. Since Division/Multiplication and Addition/Subtraction are "equal" you do what comes first, left to right.

16/2 = 8

8 x 2 = 16

16 + 1 = 17

>>19611277

What now?

nope, i failed highschool math.

can't use python without blowing something up either.

17

>>19611286
>crap = a / s * ( d - f * (g - h)) + j
I do not see a multiplication sign in the OP.

>>19611309
>YOU CANT FUCKIN MULTIPLY 2[2] before you divide 16 by 2. Since Division/Multiplication and Addition/Subtraction are "equal" you do what comes first, left to right.
>HERPDEDERP

See: >>19611283

>>19611258
True enough, I'd wager it doesn't matter though since you should always have access to the proper notation (and where you don't, brackets).

I can give examples of where implicit multiplication is taken to have a higher precedence than explicit division: common units

For example, the unit l/km which is often expressed as l/100km also (liters per kilometre).

It is, in both contexts, taken to mean “l ÷ (km)” and “l ÷ (100 × km)”, respectively, where km = k × m (or 1000 × m).

Implicit multiplication.

TO ALL YOU NIGGERS WHO SAID THEY USED W|A
CHANGE THE BRACKETS TO NORMAL PARENTHESES
I DARE YOU

>>19611322
python needs them... anyways parentheses imply multiplication

>>19611299
Everyone who gets 5 is dumb. There are no brackets/parens surrounding the 2[8-3(4-2)], thus the ÷ is not equivalent to 16 ÷ [2[8-3(4-2)]].

>>19611330
But that would change the expression :rolleyes:

In all honesty, submit a bug report to wolframalpha.

>>19611329
But kilometres, while based on meters are actually a different unit of measurement.

>>19611322
>I do not see a multiplication sign in the OP.
It is implicit. Parentheses are NEVER implicit. Multiplication can be.

>>19611329
>Implicit multiplication.
This needs to get a law so threads like these will not pop up.

>>19611349
Brackets and parenthesis are legitimately the same thing in pure mathematics and can be used interchangeably.

>>19611353
>It is implicit.
That is the point, is it not?

>>19611359
There is. See >>19611353

>>19611359
It's like code indentation style. Some people religiously defend one method and go full mad when they see people using the other.

Standardizing something like this would be pretty futile.

>>19611329
100km is a linguistic construction, not a mathematical one.

>>19611350
Not necessarily true, k = 10³

Besides,

l / 100km is still considered equal to l ÷ (100 km)

I'm just giving examples of why it makes sense to treat implicit multiplication as higher priority, including the fact that a ÷ cd just makes more sense as a ÷ (cd); I can guarantee you nobody in the world will look at it and think (a ÷ c) × d

>>19611385
>You can convert between something with relative ease, which means it's mathematical and not linguistic.
I don't think so, Tim.

>>19611370
The point? There is no ‘point’… Simple arithmetic expressions such as this are not ambiguous. There is correct and incorrect. If you don’t know the basic syntax and order of operations of elementary arithmetic then don’t be surprised when you fail at life.

>>19611365
I thought the point was that you do parenthesis before brackets. Otherwise, why have brackets at all?

>>19611379
100km is not a linguistic construction

m = c × 1÷299792458s
or to remove ambiguity for faggots,
m = c × 1÷(299792458s)

k = 10³

Now 100km is a completely valid mathematical construct equal to the exact path in terms of the speed of light and the second (which itself is defined in terms of the caesium atom)

>>19611409
>Otherwise, why have brackets at all?
It makes it easier to parse information quickly.

>>19611409
"Some authors follow the convention in mathematical equations that, when parentheses have one level of nesting, the inner pair are parentheses and the outer pair are square brackets."
From Wiki. It's purely visual aid.

>>19611403
Mathematics is a study of relations.

If you fail to grasp this basic concept then you shouldn't even /begin/ arguing about semantics.

Even the english language can be considered as a mathematical model.

Hell, “grammar” is a mathematical model.

>>19611409
They can give you better visual cues so you don’t have tons of parens piling up. They are equivalent, though, and you can prove their equivalence.

When I joined this forum earlier this summer, I was told there would be no maths.

>>19611404
>Simple arithmetic expressions such as this are not ambiguous. There is correct and incorrect.
So is 2/2(2) equal to 2/2[2]?

>>19611409
Nope, the inner brackets are always evaluated first regardless of their shape. It's just a convention to change the style of matching pairs of brackets (eg. square brackets, parentheses, curly brackets etc) for visual reasons.

>>19611438
>Even the english language can be considered as a mathematical model.

only the english language?

>>19611451
The syllabus was revised. Didn’t you attend all the threads?

>>19611404
>Simple arithmetic expressions such as this are not ambiguous. There is correct and incorrect.
That's wrong though. I don't care what your seventh grade math teacher told you, not everyone in the mathematics community agrees on every little detail.

-79

>>19611466
Didn't think I had to.

Could've at least sent an email.

>>19611447
>They are equivalent, though, and you can prove their equivalence.
I do not agree. There is a convention that you do parenthesis before brackets. Thus you can have an opinion that they are the same, or you can have an opinion that one takes precedence. But you cannot "prove" either opinions.

>>19611461
If you need to ask this then I won't bother telling you the answer.

>>19611447
No, you can define them. You can't prove them.

>>19611452
Those are equal unless you're retarded.

2/2*(2) and 2/2[2] could be considered different though, depending on who you ask.

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
4+1
5

>>19611461
Not just English. Many natural human languages can be (or at least are hypothesized to). I don’t think anyone’s generated a complete and functional grammar for any natural human language yet. Many strictly specified artificial languages are at least...

>>19611414
>100km is not a linguistic construction
Yes it is.
>Now 100km is a completely valid mathematical construct equal
Of course the expression "100km" can be a valid mathematical construct, but it's not what is typically meant. It is not the equation 100 * 1000 * m, it literally expands to 100 kilometers, which is evaluated as 100000m.
10*10 and 100 evaluates to the same value, but they are different expressions.

>>19611438

This. And if people don't fucking get this, they should go view Vi Hart's video up above.

The fact that Wolfram Alpha gives both 17 and 5 as answers says nothing about WA, but more about how the mathematical sentence is constructed. It's constructed out of poo, and that's what you get. Vi Hart says it's poo too.

"Don't let notation get in the way of your understanding" - Vi Hart.

No truer words were said.

my calculator says its 17.

so it must be right.

>>19611492
>Those are equal unless you're retarded.
Try it in wolframalpha.

>2/2*(2) and 2/2[2] could be considered different though
Yes. That is why I said it is ambiguous.

HERE'S THE DEAL YOU FUCKWADS
If we're going STRICTLY by the rules of PURE MATHEMATICS, the answer is 17.
If we take into consideration how HUMANS parse the problem, the answer could be either 5 or 17.
NOW LET'S JUST LET THIS THREAD DIE AND GO ON WITH OUR LIVES

>Implicit operator precedence
This is why we can't have nice things.

Order of operations is already bullshit enough, implicit operator precedence is just retarded though.

Also
>theoretical, ambiguous math
WHY.jpg

>>19611528

well they are different. but they is no reason to use [ ] unless there is a ( ) already inside of where they would go.

>>19611528
>Try it in wolframalpha.
Stop deferring to wolfram alpha as though it is some ultimate judge. Stephen Wolfram never even learned to do long division by hand.

>>19611491
aww bummer. I just wanted to hear more about grammar and maths.

>>19611507
I'm wondering what makes you think a linguistic construction is not a mathematical construct.

Maybe you're confusing mathematics with elementary algebra?

>>19611528
Submit.
A.
Fucking.
Bug.
Report.

>>19611553
>If we take into consideration how IGNORANT IDIOTS parse the problem, the answer could be either 5 or 17.
FTFY

>>19611553

NO. HERE'S THE DEAL, YOU FUCKWAD.

THE PROBLEM IS AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE OF THE LAYOUT. IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT IF THE ANSWER COULD BE 5 OR 17, IT IS UP TO THE PERSON WHO CONSTRUCTED IT TO PUT IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS UNAMBIGUOUS.

IF THIS WAS A SENTENCE IN A LAW, THIS WOULD CAUSE A COURT CASE TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THE ANSWER WOULD STILL BE DEBATED FOR DECADES LATER.

This is why infix notation is bullshit.
Prefix notation is master race.

>>19611564
>well they are different.
Interesting. This is in stark contrast with a previous statement:
>Those are equal unless you're retarded.
Oh well, live and learn.

>>19611576
>Stephen Wolfram never even learned to do long division by hand.
Really? Source?

>>19611610
http://www.economist.com/node/18750658

here is why you idiots think it is 5 when it is really 17

when it gets down to 16 / 2(2) you are forgetting that distributive property of only one is the same as multiplication. which is why you divide the 16 by 2 instead of multiplying the 2 by the 2

there is no difference between 2 x 2 and 2(2)

>>19611595
No, postfix notation is master race because of its stack-similar nature

For example, you can add operators that operate on variable amounts of operands:

1 2 3 + 4 sum 2 ×

which would evaluate to
1
1 2
1 2 3
1 2 3 +
1 5
1 5 4
1 5 4 sum
10
10 2
10 2 ×
20

I get 5 using expanding and factoring.

>>19611601

not the same anon you were arguing with.

i agree with you.

>>19611491
Why can’t you prove that two operators equivalent?

>>19611580
>I'm wondering what makes you think a linguistic construction is not a mathematical construct.
Because they have nothing to with each other.
"One divided by zero is seven." is a completely valid English sentence, but nonsensical when interpreted as mathematics.

Let me put this simply:

You cannot imply parenthesis, sure it might look ambiguous, but it isn't.
There is only one answer and no debates.

So taking a look at our problem:
16/2[8-3(4-2]+1
after we solve the brackets we end with:
16/2[2]+1
Now here most people seem to go wrong
You cannot imply parenthesis.
16/2[2]+1 IS NOT 16/(2[2])+1
So as you solve normally, 16/2 = 8 multiplied by 2 equals 16. Add the 1 and you end with 17.

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

16 / 2x + 1 = 16 / 4 + 1 = 5

17fags can go choke on Steve Jobs' resigned dick.

>>19611663
Just because some linguistic expressions are not valid mathematical statements does not mean others are not. Just because your dog does not bark does not mean that mine can’t (or that it isn’t a dog precisely because it does bark).

>>19611656
It's not an operator, it's a syntactical construct of the notation.

>>19611705

wow you are not only a fag.

but a completely wrong math-retarded fag

>>19611652
Prefix notation lends itself to stack-based evaluation as well, but with the advantage of being 1:1 mapping of ASTs.

>>19611689
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/33240/what-is-multiplication-by-juxtaposition

>You cannot imply parenthesis.
That's not what happens here.

If this is an algebraic question, then the square brackets are the same as parenthesis. If the square brackets in this question are parenthesis the answer is 5.

>>19611711

get your soft science out of here.

>>19611663
>but nonsensical when interpreted as mathematics.
but this isn't true

If I interpret it mathematically, I get a valid English sentence gaining me information.

Linguistics are a sub-set of mathematics in that they define information and how this information relates.

What makes
“the apple is red”
any different from
apple = red

or
“one divided by zero is seven”
any different from
1 / 0 = 7

>>19611723

so you think 3x^4 you apply the juxtaposition first?

>>19611711
I'm not talking about a specific expression, I'm talking about linguistic constructions as a whole.
The only similarities between language and mathematics is that they are both based on rules, but languages have much less rigorous rules and not backed by any axioms or logic - pretty much completely arbitrary, and often changed, and not to mention thousands of different rule sets.

I've never understood why we implemented such an arbitrary system instead of just evaluating expressions for left to right.

>>19611725
>If the square brackets in this question are parenthesis the answer is 5.
No, see >>19611218

>MY CALCULATOR SAID SO, SO IT MUST BE TRUE
How retarded can you people get?

>>19611792

so you think its 5?

>>19611808
No, I think it's 17.

5 isn't technically incorrect though.

>>19611766
But I could easily define a mathematical operator which isn't based on logic.

In fact, some special cases for our existing logic-based operators are variously re-defined throughout history and/or follow arbitrary definitions instead of logic.

For example, there are quite a few different standards for what 1/0, 0/0 and so forth evaluate to, depending on which branch of mathematics you consider.

Once again, I am simply disgusted by your absurd notion of thinking “mathematics” is equal to ”algebra”.

>>19611730
>Linguistics are a sub-set of mathematics in that they define information and how this information relates.
Not really, maybe a subset of logic.

>What makes
>“the apple is red”
>any different from
>apple = red
"the apple is red" is just a sentence, it doesn't have any value, it doesn't evaluate to anything. You can formalize it with logic in the sense of "apple" having the property "red".

"apple = red" is an assignment of a variable to another, "apple" gets the value of "red", it is in fact very different, since now "apple" is exactly equal to "red", whereas in the first sentence the "apple" is "red" - but can also have a number of other attributes.

>>19611815
>5 isn't technically incorrect though.
Yes it is.

>>19611822
>it doesn't have any value, it doesn't evaluate to anything.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

I was going to write a reply but then I realized sentences have no value.

I can't believe anything is this fucking stupid, please be trolling.

>>19611826
Implicit multiplier precedence exists. DEAL WITH IT.

>>19611822
Can't believe I missed
>"apple = red" is an assignment of a variable to another

Oh well, was fun while it lasted. Overall, I'd rate you on a 8/10 - managed to garner a few follow ups but you unfortunately made a mistake and revealed your facade.

>>19611822
>"the apple is red" is just a sentence
No, it is a set of symbols which can have infinite meanings ascribed to them.

>>19611820
>But I could easily define a mathematical operator which isn't based on logic.
No you can't.

>In fact, some special cases for our existing logic-based operators are variously re-defined throughout history and/or follow arbitrary definitions instead of logic.
Examples please.

>For example, there are quite a few different standards for what 1/0, 0/0 and so forth evaluate to, depending on which branch of mathematics you consider.
Of course certain operations can have different meanings in mathematics depending on what field or setting you're working it.
But it was the specific expression "1 / 7 = 0" I used, which is nonsensical over the integers (or real numbers).

>Once again, I am simply disgusted by your absurd notion of thinking “mathematics” is equal to ”algebra”.
Where have I ever said that?

>>19611870
>No, it is a set of symbols which can have infinite meanings ascribed to them.
aka, just a sentence,

So... is it 5 or 17?

>>19611838
>I was going to write a reply but then I realized sentences have no value.
They don't.
Meaning != value

>I can't believe anything is this fucking stupid, please be trolling.

>lose the argument, try to call troll.

>>19611891
>No you can't.
Yes I can.

>Examples please.
÷

>Of course certain operations can have different meanings in mathematics depending on what field or setting you're working it.
>But it was the specific expression "1 / 7 = 0" I used, which is nonsensical over the integers (or real numbers).
How so?

>Where have I ever said that?
You're implying it with your incapability of thinking “outside the box” or generating abstractions.

>>19611899
The term ‘sentence’ implies a grammatical structure which is not necessarily inherent in a series of symbols.

>>19611922
17
/thread

I got 17

>>19611860
>no arguments

>>19611926
>The term ‘sentence’ implies a grammatical structure which is not necessarily inherent in a series of symbols.
If there's an infinite number of meanings, every set of symbols has a grammatical structure.

>>19611960
I have no words to say because it's just so unbelievably wrong when in the context of algebra (which he seemed to imply with his examples and thinking).

Algebra has no state information.

a = b is an equality.

Regardless, time to let this thread die - it's devolved into nonsensical arguments about semantics with people that use flawed/different (less broad) definitions of the word “mathematics”.

>>19610794
It's the same shit

>>19610817
It's called order of operations, not some acronym.

>>19611925
>÷
Where is division defined where it breaks logic?

>How so?
Because division by zero is not defined over the real number field.

>You're implying it with your incapability of thinking “outside the box” or generating abstractions.
Where did I imply it?

>>19611979
>If there's an infinite number of meanings, every set of symbols has a grammatical structure.
In fact it has infinite possible grammatical structures.

I don't think 2[...] is a correct syntax - identifiers must begin with a letter.

Alright OP, I'll have a go.

16 / 2 [ 8 - 3 ( 4 - 2 ) ] + 1
16 / 2 [ 8 - 3 ( 2 ) ] + 1
16 / 2 [ 8 - 6 ] + 1
16 / 2 [ 2 ] + 1
8 [ 2 ] + 1
19 + 1
20

It's 12 in the morning, but I think I did that right? I see people saying its 5, but that sounds wrong to me. Anyway, time to go google this shit and see if I'm right, and if not what I did wrong.

>>19611993
>Algebra has no state information.
State information is the whole fucking point of algebra, it's why it was invented, so you could make calculations without explicit numbers, to have variables that could carry state for you.

>a = b is an equality.
It used for both equality and assignment.

It's quite obvious you haven't taken any higher courses in mathematics and logic.

>>19612047
8 * 2 = 19

>>19612054
>It used for both equality and assignment.
Not in simple arithmetic statements it’s not.

>>19612057

Oh haha, like I said, 12 in the morning

Let me fix that then

16 / 2 [ 8 - 3 ( 4 - 2 ) ] + 1
16 / 2 [ 8 - 3 ( 2 ) ] + 1
16 / 2 [ 8 - 6 ] + 1
16 / 2 [ 2 ] + 1
8 [ 2 ] + 1
16 + 1
17

There we go

IF ( == [ THEN
5
ELSE
17
END IF

Well shit, WolffarmAlpha says it's 5.
So much for being right.

>>19612085
If you give a calculator the wrong input it will usually give you the wrong answer.

>>19612067
Wrong, it's only that if
it was 16÷2(8-3(4-2))+1 then it would be 17
BUT
it is 16÷2[8-3(4-2)]+1
and this is 5.

HOW THE FUCK DID I GET 4

What is the [ ] operator here? Array dereference?

>>19612066
>Not in simple arithmetic statements it’s not.
Depends on the fucking statement.

x = 3
y = 4
z = 5
x*x+y*y=z*z

There you have both uses in a simple statement.

I still can't see how it's 5. Going over most of the answers who claim 5 it seems they multiply the 2[2], which goes against PEMDAS; you must do it left to right, and seeing as division is first that wouldnt make sense.

So people who got 5, by what rule are you basing the 2[2] on?

>>19612125
>There you have both uses in a simple statement.
You have listed 4 arithmetic statements. In each statement = expresses equality.

Wait a sec.

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

Ok. Here I go.

16/2[8-6]+1
16/2[2]+1
16/2*2+1
8*2+1
16+1
17

>>19612093
Why are we assuming it's wrong input?

Hugs> 16/2*(8-3*(4-2))+1
17.0
$ perl -e 'print 16/2*(8-3*(4-2))+1'
17
$ echo $((16/2*(8-3*(4-2))+1))
17
$ python2 -c 'print(16/2*(8-3*(4-2))+1)'
17
$ python3 -c 'print(16/2*(8-3*(4-2))+1)'
17.0
 >js (16/2*(8-3*(4-2))+1)
17
picoc> printf("%d\n",(16/2*(8-3*(4-2))+1));
17

>they don't parse their operations like a computer
>on /g/

I tried to compute 2[2] on my x86 rig and got page fault

All of you fucking assholes shut the fuck up right now.


GODDAMNIT.


YOU'RE ALL WRONG.


This fucking symbol is called AN OBELUS. The motherfucking picture to my left is a recreation of a problem from fucking Teutsche Algebra by Johann H. Rahn, dated 1659.


The obelus divides the two halves of the expression in two numerator and denominator:

16 ÷ 2[8-3(4-2)] + 1

16
----
2(8-3(2))+1


16
----
2(2)+1


16
----
4+1


SIXTEEN FUCKING FIFTHS


godDAMN

HOW MANY TIMES MUST I POST THIS

Since when are [ ] consider different than ( )

It's just used to read it easier

>>19612142

one of the 2's is still in parenthesis

so you take care of that first

>>19612161
I am not assuming anything.

>>19612166
>Hugs instead of ghc
I approve.
:3

>>19612054
Actually you're wrong, you should just stop before you embarass yourself any further.

A statement like "apple = red" is not an assignment, mathematics uses placeholders to indicate value, whilst you may have a variable named apple and a value named red it still does not make any sense since we're interpreting it in the context of a language not mathematics.

Linguistics have nothing to do with logic, logic is about truth values, languages are about communicating ideas, not necessarily deducing the truth.

I fucking hate math

>>19612173
Its 2*2. And since we are going from left to right, you have to do the 16/2 first.

>>19612189
You are suppose to use '[ ]' like in OP's pic.

>200 post thread about an expression with 3 levels of precedence with the same associativity

>>19612189

Type that shit in Google with no spaces and parentheses instead of brackets and you'll see it's 17.

>>19612189
The symbols you used are different from the ones in OP.

>>19612189
Google says it's 17

Google > Website still in Alpha

>>19612207
They are equivalent. Are you satisfied?

>>19612233
0/10
stop

>>19612151
>In each statement = expresses equality.
No, it doesn't.

All of you fucking assholes shut the fuck up right now.


GODDAMNIT.


YOU'RE ALL WRONG.


This fucking symbol is called AN OBELUS. The motherfucking picture to my left is a recreation of a problem from fucking Teutsche Algebra by Johann H. Rahn, dated 1659.


The obelus divides the two halves of the expression in two: numerator and denominator:

16 ÷ 2[8-3(4-2)] + 1

16
----
2(8-3(2))+1


16
----
2(2)+1


16
----
4+1


SIXTEEN FUCKING FIFTHS


godDAMN

fuck all of you

goddamnit

>>19612242
If you take each line as a simple arithmetic expression, yes. You are taking into consideration a complex algebraic expression in which case you would be correct, but I was limiting the discussion to simple arithmetic where there is no such thing as an assignment operator.

>>19612233
OP did not use * at all.

>>19612254
Well we have evolved since the dark ages. If you want to divide by all of that these days you need ()

>>19612241
Try it yourself if you are skeptical.

>>19612279
1:1 copy of OPs pic

>>19612274
Multiplication is implicit.

>>19612279

oh my god you motherfuckers this is why we stopped using the fucking obelus in the first place

goddamnit

>>19612303
Just because wolfram|alpha is wrong doesn’t mean you have to be too.

>>19612195
>Actually you're wrong, you should just stop before you embarass yourself any further.
Nope, I\m right.

>A statement like "apple = red" is not an assignment, mathematics uses placeholders to indicate value, whilst you may have a variable named apple and a value named red it still does not make any sense since we're interpreting it in the context of a language not mathematics.
Read the thread before commenting.
"apple = red" was explicitly used to contrast with "the apple is red", meaning the former was meant as a mathematical expression, while the latter as a linguistic one.

>Linguistics have nothing to do with logic, logic is about truth values, languages are about communicating ideas, not necessarily deducing the truth.
Linguistics is the study of languages - and one part of languages is grammar, and grammar is based on rules and structures, which is formulated in a logic system.

>>19612307
We are not trying to solve something that OP did not post.

>>19612322
wolfram isn't wrong though

>>19612337
Yes it is.

>>19612337
It is though. It assumed you're dividing by the things past 2 when really its jus 16/2

>>19612344
No it isn't.

>>19611337

>>19612269
>If you take each line as a simple arithmetic expression
x=3 is not an arithmetic expression.

>but I was limiting the discussion to simple arithmetic where there is no such thing as an assignment operator.
There's no such thing as an equality operator either, equality isn't an operator.

>>19612375
In simple arithmetic? You must interpret x as a numeral value, possibly in a base system higher than base ten. There is no such thing as a variable in simple arithmetic.

>>19612346
It reads and answers it based on mathematical rules, etc. If you change the input from what the OP wrote then yes you would get a different answer, but OP wrote 16÷2[8-3(4-2)]+1.

Not 16÷2(8-3(4-2))+1
Not 16÷2*[*8-3(4-2)]+1
or anything else

When doing an epsilon delta proof of a quadratic(lets keep it simple and say x^2 as x goes to 2), how do you know what to suspect delta is going to be less than?

|x^2-4| < e
so
|x-2||x+2| < e
|x - 2 | < d

So d | x + 2 | < e

What number so I choose for delta to be less than to solve the probelm?

>>19612398
>In simple arithmetic? You must interpret x as a numeral value, possibly in a base system higher than base ten. There is no such thing as a variable in simple arithmetic.
If you're talking strictly arithmetic there's not even such a thing as the equals sign.

You guys need a nice warm glass of calm

>247 posts and 17 image replies omitted.

god dammit guys

Hugs> 16/2*(8-3*(4-2))+1
17.0

bc 1.06.95
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
16/2*(8-3*(4-2))+1
17

% perl -e "print 16/2*(8-3*(4-2))+1"
17

Good enough for me.

>>19612651
>16/2*(8-3*(4-2))+1
>2*(8-3
>2*

Not an accurate reconstruction of OP's problem.

Get out.

>>19612706
Try entering it into any of these interpreters without the *
Won't work.

>>19612728

matlab says its 17.

>M$ Excel says 17
>Mathlab says 17
>C++ says 17
>Some calculator says 17
>Algebra website says 17
>wolfram says 5

So what else?

>single line division

Sage

>>19612747
who said methlab?

>>19610738
Answer is 17 OP

5 seems like it COULD be right, but noone else in this thread knows you work


LEFT TO RIGHT

LEFT TO RIGHT

LEFT TO RIGHT

LEFT TO RIGHT

Day one algebra OP

Also, you are telling me nobody on a tech board owns a scientific calculator?

5
Parenthesis
Exponents
Multiplication/Divison
Addition/Subtraction

>>19613052
I lol'd

>>19613248

Yup, 5.

Note to self: distributing 3(4-2) gets the same answer. Fuck you math teachers, you confusing-ass motherfuckerz.

OP here, I'm amazed at what you've come up with.

17

>>19615924

>(4-4)

>>19615933
Whoops.

It's 5, your syntax is shit and real mathematicians don't care about mental arithmetic.

Wow isn't [] the same as ()?

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

But whatever.

>>19610738
> Give this a shot.

>+ 266 posts and 19 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

/g/ - middle school homework help.

>>19610771
>>19610763
>>19615963
>>19612308
>>19612303
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=16+%2F+2+%288+-3+%284-2%29%29+%2B1
also, /g/ gets trolled really easily. almost as bad as /a/.

5.
duh.

>>19616032
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=16+%2F+2+%5B8+-3+%284-2%29%5D+%2B1
lrn2brackets.

17 is the answer

just google the problem and then click on first link

>>19616003
Please someone answer my question.

>>19616075
>using google
>not wolframalpha

also, ponies

>>19616061
because some equations can't actually be written in wolfram alpha, different symbols are used to denote different types of equations.
However, square brackets don't mean what they do on wolfram alpha, it's simply the same as a () but looks cleaner. The regular rules of BEDMAS/BODMAS/whatever the fuck you learned still apply.
Brackets - exponential functions - division/multiplication - addition/subtraction in the order in which they appear.

>>19616076
no.
brackets are brackets
parentheses are parentheses.
bitches don't know bout my brackets

>>19612047
>8 [ 2 ] + 1
>19?????????????
8X2=16 god damn it