Is there a film that I can get hyped about that isn't capeshit or star wars anymore?

16/2(2)+1

Malick's new kino

Attached: mv5bzmqxogexndktywy5ms00owm4lwfkzgitnjqwyjg5zde5ztk5xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvyndkzntm2odg-_v1_.jpg (780x427, 111K)

17

Its 81

17

56+1

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

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

16 / 2 x ( 5 x 2 ) +1

16 / 2 x ( 10 ) + 1
8 x 10 + 1

81

good to see anons that understand order of operations

Attached: 1470628014389 (1).jpg (226x258, 9K)

It says simplify, not solve, idiots. RTFQ.

Will knowing how to simplify this ever come to use a single time in my life? No. Read a book if you want to learn something useful

Give us your answer faggot.

Do you and half this thread flip burgers for a living?

The ones who didn't get the reaction face were right, obviously.

I thought you weren't supposed to subtract 3 from 8. I assumed you had to multiply with the -3 first

reading is for retards

81
but to answer your question there are none

When it comes to these threads, I genuinely can't tell if people are trolling or genuinely cant do basic math.

this guy gets it

>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
Pemdas(parenthesis, exponent, multiplication/division, addition/substraction.)
>4+1
>=5

They already gave you the right answer, retard.

>Villeneuva’s Dune
Came to say this but spell it right: Villeneuve

does it matter? it's a weird foreign name

Kinoneuve's Dune

lol

Hobbs and Shaw?

someone didn't graduate from high school, eh?

5
There's a lot of other films. Just get out there and find something that speaks out to you.

You need to distribute the 3 into the parenthesis retard. Its as if you're saying 8-3x=5x

Learn some math brainlets
Don't you if you're being serious.

you divide 16 by 2 first retard. Are you still in middle school?

the answer literally cannot be 5

5

what are you talking about I have an a in calc one. If you got a different answer then explain

When multiple people get the same wrong answer like , it means they were genuinely trying.

When someone does a random number like , they were obviously trolling.

When they show the working out like , you can see where they went wrong.

is correct.

Attached: 1551359117873.jpg (1100x1200, 807K)

you only distribute in equations with variables

>16÷2x=8x

Attached: brainlet3.png (623x450, 36K)

Attached: 1553720149812.jpg (500x741, 81K)

wolframalpha.com/input/?i=16÷2x
huh...

>it means they were genuinely trying
Not necessarily. You can easily troll retards by just reading left to right while ignoring brackets and putting whatever result you get like that

I seriously do not fucking understand how so many people didn't distribute the 3.

You literally cannot be any more retarded

Answer is 35

hey! that looks neat, thanks!

BRAINLETS BTFO

Attached: lol.jpg (1012x920, 93K)

>adding worthless fluff variables to pretend to be smart
lol

The division sign is not a real operator, therefore the equation is invalid as written.

you win the most retarded post in this already retarded thread

stay mad at your arbitrary use of pemdas wrongboi

Attached: 9b123b47330850ba80c7ae34835f6f8d.jpg (640x544, 31K)

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

16 / (16 - 6 * 2 ( 4 - 2 ) ) + 1

16 / (16 - 6 * (8 - 4) ) + 1

16 / (16 - (48 - 24) ) + 1

16 / (- 8) + 1

16 / - 7 = -2.28571428571

me

This is correct. You do the 2(2) part before you do the 16÷2 part because brackets come before division.

this board

She does.

>There is no standard convention as to which of these two ways the expression should be interpreted
>There is no standard convention as to which of these two ways the expression should be interpreted
>There is no standard convention as to which of these two ways the expression should be interpreted

>high school grad thinks the division sign is used in real equations
It's not because it's ambiguous. Are you scared of fractions or something?

16/2(8-3(4-2))+1
16/2(8-6)+1
16/2*2+1
And as always there is no correct answer because you can either interpret the first part as 8*2 or as 16/4
Division sign is retarded

the only difference between 5 and 17 is the semantics of the notation having the whole term fully in the denominator, or just the 2. That doesn't make you smart, it just means the person who wrote the question is cripplingly autistic

>It's not because it's ambiguous.
Why is it then?

It's not. It's for middle school algebra only.

No you retarded animal. If you did try to solve an equation stated as x/yzv^2 and you interpreted it as x/(yzv^2) instead of x/y*(zv^2) your ass would fail.

It's pedmas, not pemdas

The point was that you phrased that ambiguously by leaving out a comma you utter pillock

wolframalpha.com/input/?i=16/(2(8-3(4-2)))+1

Attached: 1541320000039.jpg (600x600, 32K)

Attached: 1529993308928.png (1920x1080, 658K)

The brackets come before division but you solve the bracket and then leave it until you finish the division because a bracket next to a number is just another way of writing a multiplication function.

Yes let's argue about the order in which you have to do associative operations

But your reading comprehension kicked in and helped you solve it ;]

Fucking based

So, is it 17 or 5?

You solve INSIDE the bracket, the 2 is not a part of the bracket, it interacts with the bracket but only after interacting with the division part.

I'm not a retarded animal, literally nobody uses your shitty middle school notation. Hang yourself you degenerate ape, I have a bachelors in mathematical science and I've proved things that your pathetic little head could even begin to comprehend

I don't understand this joke
Why does 8-3 = 16-6*2

Both because the question is deliberatly retarded.

Or is it

>get BTFO with basic math principals
>b-but muh Bachelors!

LMAO

>solve an equation stated as x/yzv^2
So an equation still written by someone who is cripplingly autistic?

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

>basic math principals
>literally the arbitrary interpretation of a set of symbols
stick to literature analysis you underdeveloped child

16/2x is not the the same as 16/(2x)

what the fuck do [] these things do in math? ive never seen this before

Harvard PhD mathematician, Berkeley mathematics professor:
math.berkeley.edu/~gbergman/misc/numbers/ord_ops.html
>There is no standard convention as to which of these two ways the expression should be interpreted
More importantly there's a part about the bizarre adherence to "PEMDAS" which only seems to exist in North America. Every post after this one bickering about this retarded.

Attached: 1535309155078.png (335x351, 41K)

it's just parentheses, typically substitutes the outside parentheses if there is one inside of it

god damn you are one retarded nigger baby

How is this shit thread still up? I fucking hate jannies

Attached: 53446.png (924x629, 981K)

Keep crying bitchboi. That math degree sure came in handy huh?

This is the part where you go

>300k starting
>any job I want

>can't refute
>desperately tries to talk shit
seething cope lmao

I always get sweaty when I see a negative parenthesis. There is some strange shit happening when you solve this and all the + become - and vice verca. Always gets me

>projecting

I wasn't the one who failed to interpret a basic equation

since when is a math equation random image as offlimits as porn?

...

81 how are you faggots getting 5?

society

Attached: DqpGpAbWkAA09m6.jpg (696x390, 33K)

You were, actually

oh, in my country all i've seen is this:
>4+4(3-2(1+4))
never seen brackets

You don't have to distribute the 3 because its the same exact fucking thing if you don't

Looks promising. One can hope it's worthwhile, so much netflix tier stuff these days in the scifi genre

Attached: VLhLG33.png (1000x1024, 687K)

Yea Forums really is full of retards fuck's sake

16/2(2) can be either 16 or 4. It’s ambiguous, there is no set order for operations concerning it. So either 17 or 5 can be correct.

These threads are a great reminder of the amount of dropkicks in the world. Sure some are trolling, but every actual unironic wrong answer (not 5, or even 177, but shit like 81 and 35) is a genuine, drooling spastic cunt with sub 80 iq

Fuck right off phoneposting scum

No its not. 16/2(2) will always go in order of operations

I can't

sqrt(2)*19

i dont even know where to start

Attached: 1554953962124.png (250x250, 58K)

It can only be 5 you retard, have you mongoloids never taken calc 1?

maybe it will help people to be exposed to a simple problem that exposes their shortcoming

isn't it just 19?

Attached: 1554519669448.png (1024x904, 339K)

26.87

next

cool hat!

if you're implying length it's 26.87

16/2 (8-3(4-2)) + 1
8 x (5 x 2) + 1
=81

5

nineteen squared + nineteen squared = x squared, hence x is sqrt[2]*19 =[approx] 26.87

it can only be 17. i'm an actuary making $240k/year

sqrt(19^2 + 19^2) = sqrt(2*19^2) = sqrt(2)*19

Left to right, paranthesis first only applies to anything within them

Attached: firefox_2019-04-19_20-34-20.png (874x347, 19K)

This should be easy

Attached: Australian-50-Cent-Piece-Question.jpg (1200x630, 82K)

never

>(8-3(4-2)) = (5 x 2)
the sheer autism here is staggering, no wonder you got trips

Im already past Calc 2 retard

16 divided by 2 times 2

seriously, how can you be so fucking stupid?

16/2x does not equal 16/2*x becauae if that were the case it would be 16x/2

it's 60 degress

Oh yeah, that's probably why I got a C in a level physics

60 degrees

Denis Villeneuve - Dune
Untitled Chris Nolan movie

based retards, go back to school

Under The Silver Lake

multiplication and division are the same thing, so you execute each left to right. So the answer is only ever 17.

It’s 14 you brainlets

Attached: 4251A371-C8DF-4572-8C48-6A6490AA8A58.jpg (224x224, 12K)

>past
It seems you skipped English.

>1 silly error
>sheer autism

Anyone saying 17 is an amerimutt

I want to write for film/television. I’m mathematically retarded and fully admit it.

when you catch yourself wondering why life isn't fair and that you're broke, try to remember that it's because you're dumber than successful people

Let's see some kino ODEs

anyone saying 17 actually knows what they're doing

>anyone who received an actual education is an amerimutt
why thank you for the compliment

WHY DO YOU NIGGAS ALWAYS DO MATH PROBLEMS AS POSTS!!!??? NOBODY EVER HAS THE SAME ANSWER!!

Attached: 22zq01.jpg (1245x1207, 90K)

The real retards are the ones wasting time in this thread and calling each other retarded over simple mistakes and notation. I.e every single one of you, including me

according to google and this random website, it's 17

algebra.com/algebra/homework/equations/Equations.faq.question.68018.html

Attached: ss (2019-04-19 at 02.53.21).png (759x549, 28K)

16/2x is literally 16/2*x

No is 16/2*1/x

8/x and 8x

I got 51... How are you guys getting 81 or 17?

I got 5, but apparently it's supposed to be written like a fraction. Once it's written as a fraction is plain as day it's 17, but having it written out like in OP can be tricky, especially since most people (myself included) haven't been in a math class in a quite a few years.

Anyway, there's shit out there to watch, but gotta dig for it.

Attached: plot-formula.png (938x293, 58K)

today is the day, when a single image has shown that every board minus /pol/ are absolute brainlet cucks

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

run your work by me

It's still 5. You are suppose to do the work in parenthesis. Then multiply the parenthesis by the coefficient 2. Divide 16 by that and plus 1.

How did you get 51?

Don't listen to the guys with 81 and 17. Its 5

Dumbest post in the whole thread

No, retard. It's a field, you distribute.

the answer is 17

Only one of those 2s is contained within the bracket

Here's the key people are missing and is really just an eye trick by writing the problem the way it is.

You RESET your left to right after each calculation.

So when you get to 16/2*[2] you do the 16/2 before the 2*[2]

Meaning you end up with 8*[2] = 16, then + 1 for the 17

Sorry for the spacing, but makes math easier when it's visually broken up, at least for me.

here you go faggots

Attached: image.jpg (4032x3024, 2.03M)

>- magically becomes +

The answer is write, but you don't multiply the parentheses when you start, you do what's in the parentheses

to further explain cause the parenthesis can fuck mess this up.

With PEMDAS, the "parenthesis"only refer to calculations INSIDE parenthesis. When a number is next to parenthesis, ie 2[2] the calculation isn't actually inside parenthesis, so it becomes a basic multiplication problem.

When you have the 16/2[2], it's actually no different than writing 16/2*2.

So again, reset your left to right and you get 8*2 for.

Attached: IMG_20190419_152749.jpg (4608x3456, 3.54M)

Are you serious?

-3 times -2, the -2 flips to 2 and scales to 6

If you don't know how to rotate a photo can I really trust your math?

nigger do you know how negative numbers work? oh wait you probably don’t because you’re a nigger

Attached: fixd for dumb dumb.jpg (4032x3024, 2.28M)

Brackets
Orders
Divisions
Multiplication
Addition
Subtraction
it's 17, you divide before multiplying if it isn't in brackets

It's 17 you idiots. Division is equal to multiplication.

Wrong

Sorry that's just how my phone posted it. But it's correct nonetheless

>With PEMDAS, the "parenthesis"only refer to calculations INSIDE parenthesis. When a number is next to parenthesis, ie 2[2] the calculation isn't actually inside parenthesis, so it becomes a basic multiplication problem.
It is an implicit multiplication of an integer and a fully reduced parenthetical term. Implicit multiplication binds higher than division.

You can't have 2x as the denominator. It would be 16 over 2 then multiply that by X.
2x would only work if in the original equation was

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

You absolute dumbass, 2(2)=4 this is 8th grade math retard

My Christ, can we please just make PEDMAS the universal standard so this retardation goes away
It's 5

>phone post
you're digging that hole deep user lol

For real tho, you made it more complicated than it needs to be. No need for variables and shit. Just see and

you'd be right if as written the division didn't have priority

how would you take a picture of the paper without a phone? Use your webcam?

>16/(2[8-3(4-2)])+1
This equals 5.
The OP equals 17.

It doesn't. 16/2(2) = 4.

>not taking pictures with a digital camera then uploading them to your computer

nah, that's a misnomer, Multiplication and Division are actually on the same level just from left to right. Same goes for Addition and Subtraction. Same tier, so you work left to right. The PEMDAS can be a little misleading in that way.

>he thinks 8 x 2 = 4
>american education

you're treating it like it's written 16/(2(2))

Attached: image.jpg (4032x3024, 2.07M)

It's not a misnomer, it's a common agreement that's followed by many math papers and textbooks.

>16 / 2 * 2 = 4
You have to be trolling at this point.

either rotate it on the phone, email to yourself, use webcam, transfer image to desktop, or straight take the photo in the phones prefer orientation.

However the correct answer is not to post pics from phones on Yea Forums at all, cause it exposes you're a phone poster

Noone fucking uses that symbol for division beside 3rd grade.
Confuses which is the denominator.
Since its not (16/2) I assume the denomiator is the whole thing making the answer 5

Attached: 1498343626332.jpg (450x370, 27K)

Yes. a/bc = a/(bc). This is a common convention.

Brainlet general?

Attached: 1510181666354.png (645x729, 70K)

Attached: Capture.png (671x627, 34K)

nah bb, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Mnemonics
math.harvard.edu/~knill/pedagogy/ambiguity/index.html
math.wikia.org/wiki/Order_Of_Operations
Notices all the use of "Multiplication/Division" and "Multiplication AND Division" Same tier. Also inb4 "not in my text book!"

Americans get 4, real countries get 17
GG OP can we end this thread now?

>16/2(2)
>google makes it (16/2)2
kek

You have to be fucking trolling.
You're saying (a/b)*c = a/(b*c)

It's 5 and anyone saying otherwise is trolling hard.
I am always amazed at the amount of replies these threads get.

>(16/2)x2
nigger do you even know how to read?

Attached: 63887922-F062-447E-BD25-9BD248DF5095.png (1300x1300, 224K)

1.8

That's how 16/2(2) is supposed to be read

The second link you posted is stepping on the dick of your argument.
Whatever. What you need to understand about "order of operations" (a meme) is that it basically codifies whatever is needed to write down polynomials without parens. That's it.

no? or else it would be written like that

rationalize it however you want, won't change you're wrong lol

M and D are same tier, left to right as is + and - are same tier left to right. Just how it works, man.

retard changing a part of the equation can change the answer

>16/2[8-3(4-2)]+1
>16/(2[8-3(4-2)])+1
So you're telling me there's no difference between these?

exactly
thats why I get 5 and some dont
we read it differently
noone uses that division symbol

Still parenthesis are the first thing in the order of operations, and that just doesn't entail working on what's inside, but working with the coefficients of it.

it says simplify not solve retards

The simplest form of the equation with no variables and all real numbers is a single number.

retard, there’s no variables so the simplified version is the solved answer

>Still parenthesis are the first thing in the order of operations
Things inside parentheses, retard. Otherwise, why aren't you adding the 1 at the end before dividing 16? The +1 is beside the parentheses.
These are not the same.

Attached: Untitled.png (910x663, 25K)

(you)

Do you even know what a coefficient is?

You can't "read it differently".
You're objectively wrong if you get 5.

Yeah I know they're not the same
OPs question missing some parantheses to make it more clear
I think its the second cause 2 is attached to that right statement
Is it was the first it would be with parantheses (16/2) * ...