|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 14,723 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 14,723 Likes: 2 |
That's an example of why I like the liberal use of parenthesis and operators. They leave no doubt.
For 16 I would have written it as (8/2)*(2+2) or even (8/2)(2+2) is better.
Politics is War by Other Means
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,693
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,693 |
Here's one of the comments from the article:
8÷2X(2+2) = 16
8÷2(2+2) = 1
Final answer.
People who are poor in math will add that multiplication sign in their delusional minds and then follow PODMAS to come up with 16
People who are proficient in math will not add that multiplication sign and still follow PODMAS exactly and come up with 1. People like me who are stuck on RPN come up with 1 too.  ![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/xQ1Lq0Z.jpg) Interesting. I use a 41CV with "Applications" and Math/Stats ROM pacs. I get 16 The calculation takes the parenthetic first (2+2) and stores the resulting 4: STO 01 (or in ALPHA STO A) It then solves left-to-right: 8 ENTER 2 ÷ RCL 01 X 16
You can no more tell someone how to do something you've never done, than you can come back from somewhere you've never been...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 14,723 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 14,723 Likes: 2 |
Eight in the numerator over 2 times 4 in the denominator is how I took it. It is ambiguous. I consider it a poorly written problem. If I saw it in code, I would question whether or not the original programmer knew what the result should be.
Politics is War by Other Means
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,408 Likes: 5
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
OP
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,408 Likes: 5 |
2(2+2) and 2*(2+2) are synonymous. The * is implied whether it's written or not. The only way the expression can be used as a denominator is to write it as (2(2+2)). Otherwise it's solved 8 / 2 * (2+2)
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
Eight in the numerator over 2 times 4 in the denominator is how I took it. It is ambiguous. I consider it a poorly written problem. If I saw it in code, I would question whether or not the original programmer knew what the result should be. Hm? What's wrong with a / b * (c + d) ? Of course in the real world if it was just constants you or the preprocessor would evaluate it. As 16.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
597 members (12344mag, 16penny, 06hunter59, 02bfishn, 1234, 1lessdog, 58 invisible),
2,560
guests, and
1,367
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,574
Posts18,491,964
Members73,972
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
