Being able to outplay your opponent is directly linked to your ability to solve problems

This is like day 1 of CS 101. Operations have a particular hierarchy, that's all you need to know to solve this.

why are you doing 2[2] before 16 div 2

Attached: Untitled.jpg (821x411, 37K)

I refuse to work on something that does not adhere to proper ISO standards

Attached: ISO 80000-2.png (717x909, 200K)

Based

what is the difference between 'plus or minus' and 'minus or plus'

you distribute the 2 to the brackets first because its touching it

correct answer. today someone on Yea Forums had some sense. mods go ahead and prune this thread now.

>he does not understand PEMDAS
I bet you would prefer 5 as an answer.

• Parentheses
• Exponents
• Multiply or Divide
• Addition or Subtraction

Parenthesis out ranks multiplication.

tpbp

It's PE(MD)(AS) you fucks
MD and AS are just done from left to right.

It's 17

>using the ÷ symbol in the same expression as implied multiplication
lmao

5

ye most of these problems have a subtle lack of brackets that fuck people up, Wolfram's algorithm always assume multiplied terms are in the numerator, as such they give 17, in truth OP is a dumb faggot for posting g dumb faggot images like these and the dumbass jannies need to get lynched for allowing it.

Attached: 1557138518867.jpg (322x299, 27K)

>obelus
into the trash, garbage notation

Math is gay as fuck lmao

It's literally written here, learn to read.

>Division and multiplication is just left to right
Doesn't matter

no you don't, it's just multiplication at that point so you do division first because it's further left.

stuff IN the parenthesis goes first which was already done.

The real answer is the friends we made along the way

Attached: 1557351099353.gif (607x609, 821K)

Only inside parentheses dumbass. Outside parentheses is just implied multiplication.

>multiplying the numerator

Attached: WV7bgTom_400x400.jpg (400x400, 25K)

Nope.

>janitors allow threads
wrong site user

16 / 2(8 - 3(4 - 2)) + 1 = 17
16 / (2(8 - 3(4 - 2))) + 1 = 5

The answer is 5, if you think its 16/5 then you are assuming invisible brackets. Thread over.

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

If it was written properly the implied multiplication would be in parens as a single expression in the denominator. The answer is 5.

"Touching it" is just there being no symbol, so multiplication.
It requires some assumptions either way, but there being no brackets and it being a shitty symbol I'd assume it's not the numerator.
Yes it does, that's only multiplication and division. Brackets have already been solved. Adding extra brackets around singular numbers doesn't add shit.

>16 / 2(8 - 6) + 1
>16 / 2 * 2 + 1
>8 * 2 + 1

Attached: 664.jpg (558x614, 18K)

Yup, still got it.

Attached: JYrmeHI.png (221x119, 10K)

>16/2(x) = (16/2)(x)
Go back to school

But user, that's not what is written in OPs problem.

Brackets before division, user

based and mathpilled

Inline division is inherently ambiguous, but if you must, as nb shitposting, you can never use enough (((parentheses)))

>if it was written so my answer is correct then my answer would be correct

but it's not

The only thing being simplified is your brain if you try to solve a retarded wrongly written equation

>Yes it does, that's only multiplication and division.
if the question is actually posed properly then it doesn't matter in what order you do the division and multiplication
2x2 /4 = 2x0.5 = 1
2x2 /4 = 4/4 = 1
Of course if you have garbage questions like op then shit gets fucked up

Based intellectual 17chads working mathlets and brainlets into a seethe

You multipy the division because its next to a parentase
however you start with the division because times and devided have the same priority so you go left to right

It's not written correctly in any sense.

Is this really what common core is doing to zoomers?

Oh look another ambiguously written math problem thread I'm sure all the posts here are reasonable and no one is flying into an autistic rage and spamming rules that may or may not even be relevant because of others visualizing this intentionally misleading equation differently than they did.
Someone will become irrationally angry over this very post.

I don't think PEMDAS's failure to convey the equal precedence of multiplication and division is the source of confusion here. People are taught that "parentheses" comes first, and of course this means that things inside of parentheses have higher precedence, but apparently some people misinterpret "parentheses first" to mean that even multiplication has a higher precedence when written as the juxtaposition of a number and a parenthesized term. See .

No matter how wrong that notion is, it's clear that the expression was deliberately constructed in such a way as to confuse readers. Multiplication by juxtaposition is typically used in expressions where division is written as a fraction. Nobody fucking uses the obelus (÷) symbol along with the pictured notation for multiplication. Also, .

Am i being baited? "/" means the same thing

you're not very bright, are you?

That's true though, multiplication and division have the same priority you dipshit. Those brackets mean shit. 16/2(x) = 16/2*x = 16/2x. Note,no extra brackets under the division, only the 2 is being divided.

16/2[8-3(4-2)]+1 is 17
16/{2[8-3(4-2)]}+1 is 5

Nice formatting, bro. Sure there's no ill will with that obelus and parentheses spacing. :^)

today on Yea Forums does literally middle school math

You should be able to distribute the two into the brackets before hand or after the fact, if you get different answers before and after, both answers are right, it's the equation that is wrong

Attached: 1555307802119.jpg (326x337, 41K)

That's technically correct, even though the notation is garbage.

Better notation would be
>16 ÷ 2 × (8 - 3 × (4 - 2)) + 1
in which it is more visually obvious that 2 is not part of the parenthesized term and that the product of them does not have higher precedence than the division, or
>(16 / 2)(8 - 3 × (4 - 2)) + 1
in which the parentheses around the division, while not strictly necessary, remove any ambiguity.

>16/{2[8-3(4-2)]}+1 is 5
And this isn't what's in the OP. You're inventing brackets when there aren't any. Might as well add a number while you're at it.

There's no / in the OP either, but I don't hear you complaining

>cant do it properly
>equation is wrong

I refuse to solve problems for Yea Forums just to get yelled at by Euros who get taught some sort of bizarre alternative mathematics in their islamic schools of peace where implied multiplication sets the world on fire

Attached: tfpo8zk6sww21.jpg (1325x2338, 791K)

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

5

Report the fucking thread

Attached: A13F3CC5-8C3E-4A5D-877A-3F10A86D8E67.jpg (991x629, 300K)

>simplify
>not resolve
>not algebra
???

Quick basic math lesson for the retards saying it isn’t 17 because too many people make this mistake and assert they’re correct
Division and multiplication are done left to right, you are too old to be quoting pemdas. this is because division as you should have deduced years ago is essentially multiplying by the inverse much like how you do addition and subtraction left to right because subtracting is the same as adding the opposite. I didn’t think I would have to explain this. The answer is 17.

seething eceleb cuck

You can assume that ÷ means the same as /, but nobody's going to type ÷. I'd say it's clearer that there aren't implied brackets with ÷ compared to /, so whatever.

Fuck ecelebs, retard.

If you got anything other than 5, you are actually retarded

>I refuse to solve problems for Yea Forums just to get yelled at by Euros who get taught some sort of bizarre alternative mathematics in their islamic schools of peace where implied multiplication sets the world on fire

Attached: 87988998.jpg (820x1024, 57K)

To write lists of equations like a+b and a-b in a more compact form you use a±b. However, say you have the list:
a+b-c
a-b+c
The notation a±b∓c tells you to pick the minus sign for c when you pick the plus sign for b, and viceversa.

I understand PEMDAS, I just took other classes besides braindead math and since they never used ÷ I get all hesitant whenever I see it.
This is what I mean

2*x and 2(x) are two different things. One's a term, one's an expression. You internally resolve all terms first.

5 is the answer, anyone else is wrong.

its 5 as long as you got 5 you're ok.

Attached: 1555798073540.png (800x800, 377K)

The division symbol is always the central reason why people end up with different answers for these stupid questions, because the order of operations changes drastically depending which parts of the equation are the divisor, which are the dividend, and which aren't involved with the fraction at all.

The division symbol is abandoned after introductory algebra specifically because it is so unclear. Any question like this with it is pure bait. sage for not video games.

How the fuck do you get an answer that isn't 5?
Do these niggers even math?

ROUND TWO! FIGHT!

Because it's ambiguous sub 60 IQ, retard.

It's 5 you dolt

It’s not ambiguous at all kek

No they're not. (x) = x. And 2*(x) = 2(x). They're the same thing.

IT'S AMBIGUOUS ON PURPOSE, IDIOTS

>That's true though, multiplication and division have the same priority you dipshit. Those brackets mean shit
and yet you'll never see shit like OP in any academia document, shit is misleading for no good reason

If you were not an idiot you could see why it's ambiguous.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Mixed_division_and_multiplication

>"However, in some of the academic literature, multiplication denoted by juxtaposition (also known as implied multiplication) is interpreted as having higher precedence than division, so that 1 ÷ 2x equals 1 ÷ (2x), not (1 ÷ 2)x."

hmm.

only pedophile faggots like math

Division symbol followed by an implied multiplication, absolutely disgusting math

itt 1/4 seventeenchads, 1/4 fivelets, 1/2 discussing why the equation is misleading (true galaxy brain tier

You know what this means: fuck inline division. It's garbage notation.

Attached: 1329853124114.png (240x249, 121K)

No one uses ÷ beyond gradeschool.

of course, and it's the case in most academic literature, but the linear form in OP is never used anyway so it's irrelevant

It is kind of ambiguous, but whoever wrote the goddamn problem like that probably isn't smart enough to think of a solution other than 5.

except this equation doesn't have variables that's what's misleading here

>being able to solve a problem is directly linked to your ability to solve problems
wew... so this is the power of Yea Forums.
Also
16÷2[8-3(4-2)]+1
=16÷[8-3(2)]+1
=16÷(8-6)+1
=16÷2+1
=8+1
=9
And I got all Cs in school. My god is this board pathetic.

it's a meme pic, what did you expect. Division symbol should be banned altogether.

imagine being this retarded

So then you should get the same answer before and after distributing the two.

If you don't the problem isn't written correctly.

>asks to be simplified
>some people act as if there is an equal sign
>division and multiplication are ambiguous on purpose
I fucking hate this place

>completely deleted part of the equation after the first line
kek. Double check your work before talking shit, dumbass.

>shit is misleading for no good reason
Well, it has a clear reason for being misleading to be honest.

Can someone please tell me I'm not going insane. What the fuck am I doing wrong here?

Attached: math.png (164x93, 2K)

>implying 2(x+y) = 2x+y

Attached: 1516048637663.jpg (300x300, 64K)

No wonder you got all Cs.

FUCK 2
FUCK MATH
AND FUCK JANNIES

Just gonna discard that 2, huh?

So they aren't different things. And adding brackets around singular numbers in the OP doesn't change anything either.

>16÷2[8-3(4-2)]+1
>=16÷[8-3(2)]+1

where did your two go dumbass,way to go

>*
You should not have any of these, they are not there

I did no such thing, I never added brackets around an addition. You could substitute x for x+y in my post though, same shit. (x+y) = x+y.

1.8

Did the division early, but still got the right answer.

That isn't what he was saying as what you're talking about is something entirely different.

what other than multiplication is it then?

It means inline division is garbage when combined with multiplication by juxtaposition. Otherwise it's fine.

What? It doesn't matter whether there are variables.

Wikipedia's example is
>1 ÷ 2x
and OP's example is
16 ÷ 2[8 - 3 × (4 - 2)] + 1
and they are ambiguous for exactly the same reason.

The quote from Wikipedia is about implied multiplication's ambiguous precedence with respect to division; both examples use implied multiplication right after division. They're the same thing.

I made a typo and I'm just gonna see where this goes now.

5

They need to get added when the brackets get solved, because otherwise you can't tell when they're two separate numbers.

4-2 is 2
2x3 is 6
8-6 is 2
2x2 is 4
16/4 is 4
4+1 is 5

>lol brackets are meaningless it's the same thing as multiplication hurr durr
>w-wait not if there's more than one thing inside the brackets that doesn't count

FUCK THAT DIVISION SYMBOL
I'VE GOTTEN INTO DIFF EQ AND LINEAR ALGEBRA WE NEVER FUCKING USE IT EVER

Also there is no difference between those two types of brackets unless we are talking about matrices

You know variables are just a number, right? In the OP you could have x = [8-3(4-2)] and express the statement as 16÷2x-1

>2[8-3(4-2)]
>2[8-3(2)]
>2[8-6]
>2[2]
>4

>2[8-3(4-2)]
>2[8-12+6]
>2[2]
>4

>over 100 replies
Can't you people do basic math?

>Also there is no difference between those two types of brackets unless we are talking about matrices
Most people just use them to make it clear where one bracket begins and the other ends.

simply solve, pedantic fucker

16 / 2[8-3(4-2)]+1
8[8-12+6]+1

64 - 96 + 48 + 1 = 17

16÷2[8-3(4-2)]+1
16÷[16-6(4-2)]+1
16÷[16-6(2)]+1
16÷(16-12)+1
16÷4+1
4+1
5

I'm a math tutor, if you argue with this math you're wrong

These stupid questions live off of one simple ambiguity: the obelus (÷). It is never made clear whether it is meant to represent division of the adjacent symbols or if it is short hand the vinculum (line between numerator and denominator). As such there are two results based on which approach you take. In the case of an obelus, the result is 81. In the other case the result is 16/21.

You can't just replace a variable with an equation like x+y without regarding brackets. If you'd substitute x for x+y in 2*x you'd need to add brackets otherwise it wouldn't be true anymore.
If x = y+z, and you have 2*x, then you can't just make that 2*y+z, it would have to be 2*(y+z).

Yes. Once you've completed whatever processes were inside the brackets, it no longer takes priority. I'm glad you agree.

It's not basic math though, it's a trick, as are all questions of this nature. But the correct answer is Run the equation through any math program you want (matlab, wolframalpha etc.) and you'll get 17 as the answer.

It's 0
>16 / 2[8 - 3(4 - 2)] +1
Distributive Property
>16 / 2[8 - 12 - 6] +1
Subtract within brackets
>16 / 2[-8] +1
Multiply 2 and -8
>16/-16 +1
Quotient Identity
>-1 +1
-1 and 1 cancel each other out
>0

Attached: 7t316a5i28l21.jpg (500x647, 32K)

/thread
Everybody else in this thread is objectively wrong

Nice job distributing that -3 and not ending up with a +6.

it's 17, get a brain burgers

When you distributed you forgot the double negative of the 2. You'd be subtracting a negative number, meaning you'd be adding the absolute value of 6 instead of subtracting it.

Why do you multiply before division? You're not solving what's inside the brackets first, you're multiplying 2 times something while that needs to come after the division.

Going by this logic, shouldn't that -6 be positive? A minus times a minus is a positive.

>posting smug when you're so obviously wrong and retarded

Attached: 1466889965655.jpg (489x426, 30K)

Fucking google does it for you

>burgers gonna freak

Attached: 1454372985495.png (334x148, 2K)

I got 1.8 too am i retarded?

> (8 - 12 - 6) = -8
Not -10
You're doubly wrong, because it's actually
(8 -12 +6) = 2

11.73 anyone saying otherwise is a filthy europoor.

Because you brainless are forgetting that foiling and distribution have a higher priority than basic multiplication and division but you can't move your fifth grade brain past PEMDAS

W-Wait what the fuck

Attached: images (23).jpg (427x600, 15K)

>-8*-8 = -16
your calculation was wrong from the very beginning but this was the most retarded shit I've seen all week. Kill yourself

Attached: 1512448958612.png (951x451, 133K)

Its 0 Dont (you) me

Attached: solv.png (419x127, 3K)

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

Even when taking PEMDAS into account, the M is clearly before the D. That means you should multiply first before you divide.

But anyone who writes code in any capacity will know that a ÷ b * c + d by convention evaluates to (a / b) * c + d
The guy who wrote the problem had these neat little tools ( ) to make us do stuff in a different order than what is conventional and he didn't use them

Claiming the problem is ambiguous because of some irrelevant obscure Euro literature that decided a (b + c) is different at all from a * (b + c) for some opaque reason is also retarded, since making such a thing conventional does not expand what is possible with expressions at all, and adding rules for no reason won't get anyone to the moon, it just gets your daughter raped by 30 muslims, that's 2 * 15 muslims, and that's terrible.

answer is 17 and also niggers

Attached: mxmflkpk47t21.png (1200x900, 1.84M)

That division symbol is obsolete, rewrite the equation so it's less ambiguous.

I don't get the joke. In what country is the answer not 6?
t. Burgerlet

Fucking FOIL it you faggot. Your brain is stuck on a rule for children when you're taught exceptions in later algebra and calculus.

>foiling and distribution
That's a fucking mnemonic, not a operation. It's only brackets that are relevant, but the 2 isn't in the brackets.
PEMDAS is bullshit, multiplication and division are on the same tier, you do them left to right.

>post easy math problem with improper notation
>guaranteed replies

nigger

Attached: 1556124634300.jpg (350x346, 31K)

Okay but it's not a ÷ b * c + d
It's a ÷ bc + d

When would I need to do this

That's just a system to make you remember how to easily multiply (!) the term outside the parenthesis with the terms inside the parenthesis.

read the second paragraph and then bin that knife

PEMDAS bro, if multiplication comes before division, then why wouldn't it be the same for addition and subtraction?

FOIL is multiplication you hamburger

Anyone worth their salt would be writing division as multiplication anyway using a fraction

>it's not X
>it's actually X
wow, neat

It's a mnemonic to tell you to remember to multiply every term with every other term, it's just the most common because of parabolas. What are you going to do when your curve isn't parabolic? It's not always a simple (x+y) (z+a) format

>16 ÷ 2[8 - 3 × (4 - 2)] + 1

Most of this expression is a waste of space, considering the whole point of this thread is to make people argue about the first few characters. We can shorten this to
>16 ÷ 2(n)
and still have the same debate.

The real question is this: Does implied multiplication — e.g. 2(n) — have higher or lower precedence than inline division?

If the expression were written as
>16 ÷ 2 × n
then there would likely be no confusion, as division and multiplication have the same precedence according to the usual order of operations, and therefore are done left to right.

For example, if n = 4, then
>16 ÷ 2 × n = 16 ÷ 2 × 4 = 8 × 4 = 32

If we wanted the multiplication to be done first, we would add parentheses. For example, if n = 4 again, then
>16 ÷ (2 × n) = 16 ÷ (2 × 4) = 16 ÷ 8 = 2

Unfortunately, the original equation is not written as
>16 ÷ 2 × n
but is instead written as
>16 ÷ 2(n)
which can be confusing to readers who may visually identify 2(n) as a single term, and therefore assume that the implied multiplication in 2(n) should be solved before the division.

The more common form of this particular bait seems to be
>6÷2(1+2)
so maybe I should have just gone with that instead of using n.

But PEMDAS teaches Multiplication AND Division, not Multiplication THEN division

This is right.

Attached: ring ring bananna phone.jpg (850x850, 117K)

Alt right mutts coopting honk pepe
Cringe!

Are you for real? What school did you go to where they didn't explain to you that multiplication and division are on the same level and done left to right just like addition and subtraction. Is this why these bait threads always work so well?

Foil has a higher precedence than basic multiplication and division. Why don't you know this?

> equation

mathlets arguing with each other is always fun

>Does implied multiplication — e.g. 2(n) — have higher or lower precedence than inline division?
Actually the correct question is "does it have higher precedence or equal precedence?" but whatever.

Because FOIL is a parenthesis

It's 17, retard

÷ 2[8 - 3 × (4 - 2)] + 1
>
>Most of this expression is a waste of space, considering the whole point of this thread is to make people argue about the first few characters. We can shorten this to
÷ 2(n)
Not true, you'd be including the + 1 in the 2 multiplication.

And so is this, but 2 is just a scalar, it doesn't need to be written with parens. You still distribute it.

No it fucking doesn't. Source me some good resource that says that. It's just multiplication.

>Simple Pemdas
I'm not even a math/science major, gimme something that'll make me angry

I never said the correct answer wasn't 17. You obviously didn't read the post so just don't reply.

Does the +1 relate to the intentionally ambiguous use of implied multiplication after inline division?

I wasn't actually trying to imply that 16 ÷ 2(n) is equal to 16 ÷ 2[8 - 3 × (4 - 2)] + 1 for any particular n. I just wanted to replace the long expression with one which contains only the parts which are relevant to the reason for this thread being such effective bait.

Fuck, take an algebra class.
The difference is y ÷ 2 * x and y ÷ 2x
y ÷ 2 * x
y/2 * x/1
xy/2

y ÷ 2x
y/2x

>Does the +1 relate to the intentionally ambiguous use of implied multiplication after inline division?
No idea, I just stopped reading when you made a wrong assumption in the first line.

÷ is just a fraction with the numerator and denominator replaced by dots, its the same as /

Consider the following, using substitution.

I have. I was taught x*y is the same thing as xy.

I forgot the pic, my bad.

Attached: 20190509_125921.jpg (4160x3120, 3.4M)

Nice source bucko.

And you apparently stopped reading my last post as well, because you missed the part where I wrote that I wasn't actually trying to imply that 16 ÷ 2(n) is equal to 16 ÷ 2[8 - 3 × (4 - 2)] + 1 for any particular n.

At least you admit to being a cunt.

Again, you're multiplying before division, and before solving the brackets.
>And you apparently stopped reading my last post as well
Yup. Stopped there as well.

Sorry that you're such a brainlet. It must be hard.

No it's not. 4/2/2 is not 4, it's 1.

16/4 +1

x * y resolves to the same value as xy, but has 2 terms whereas xy is one term.

37.

You legit need to go back to school because I'm a math tutor and I didn't break a single rule with my order of operations. I'm perfectly allowed to use substitution to show a point and resolve a term before any other basic multiplication or division.

ok sweetie

>You legit need to go back to school because I'm a math tutor and I didn't break a single rule with my order of operations.
Multiplication before division while the multiplication was on the right.

>I'm perfectly allowed to use substitution to show a point
That's not the issue here.

>and resolve a term before any other basic multiplication or division.
You're doing basic multiplication though.

>because I'm a math tutor
Sad!

>if multiplication comes before division
You're baiting, right?

Stop taking PEMDAS literally. The original image intentionally misuses the ÷ symbol juxtaposed with implied multiplication to make it ambiguous. The expression can not be simplified as is because it's missing brackets.

I'm not him, but I think you're missing the point. You're allowed to replace 2 with x, and you're allowed to distribute that x to the terms inside the parentheses... if it's time for computing that multiplication. If the division has higher precedence than the implied multiplication then you need to do 16 / 2 or (16 / x) first, and then distribute that result to the terms in the parentheses.

Basically, your substitution of x = 2 didn't change any of what makes this problem ambiguous. You could do the x = 2 substitution and still get the other answer by doing division first then distributing the fraction 16 / x, which is what the other guy wants you to do. The substitution is irrelevant in every possible way.

Implied multiplication is on the same level as parens. PEMDAS was introduced to you before you knew what foiling, logarithms, and exponents were and your tiny, smooth brain can't handle it.

Get . I can't believe you thought you were on my level.

>Implied multiplication is on the same level as parens.
Bullshit.

>PEMDAS was introduced to you before you knew what foiling, logarithms, and exponents were and your tiny, smooth brain can't handle it.
I never heard of PEMDAS until I was like 20 to be honest. Not American.

You suck. Get out of my country—maybe they’ll let you back in when your answer is under 17.

>16 / 2[2] + 1
16/2(2) + 1
8(2) + 1
17

All Multiplication and Division has the same priority, so you calculate them from left to right

through the bickering and insulting and all the crossfire can someone tell me if 81 is correct or not

I just asked my community college professor on discord.

I sincerely doubt I'm in your country mate.

>foiling
I'm sorry but what does this mean?

Are you referring to the FOIL (first, outer, inner, last) mnemonic? That doesn't even really apply here, considering it's to help children remember how to multiply two binomial expressions, e.g., (a + b) * (c + d). We don't have two binomial expressions here, and I've never heard anyone use the word "foiling" to describe implied multiplication or the distributive property thereof generally.

It can't mean directly solving equations though. I struggled with math so hard in school years. Barely passed. Literally passed my math final in HS by one point. One fucking point.

Started playing the last year of SFIV. By the time SFV had it's first Capcom Cup, I was Super Plat and won two of my locals.

My best friend, who is excellent at math, had been playing fighting games seriously since Super SFIV - basically got surpassed by me in 6 months. He quit a year in because of the MASSIVE gap I created between us.

It's not 17 you imbecile.

Absolutely not. Not even up for debate unlike some other answers.

Yea Forums - Video Games

Not at all

16/2x
Is not the same as
16/2*x

>—
Nice use of the em dash though.

so the real question here is this: does implicit multiplication have priority, yes or no
if so, the answer is 5
if not, it is 17

also
>Suppose a (somewhat sloppy) mathematician writes 1/2x. I could argue that this is an ambiguous expression—it could mean either (1/2)x or 1/(2x). But if the mathematician meant (1/2)x, why didn't they just write x/2, which is both more concise and free of ambiguity? So if I were to read 1/2x in a mathematical paper, I would assume that the author meant 1/(2x) and omitted the parentheses for visual clarity

Somebody fuckin' gets it.
All you mathlets are up against a mathlete.

you
and you

are both equally retarded.

My post didn't make any statement about what the correct answer is. The post was about the intentionally ambiguous way in which the expression is written.

FOIL is just a mnemonic to make you remember to multiply every term. (x+y)(a+b+c) is still considered foiling, as is (x) (a+b(c)). Just substitute the numbers for variables and you'll see it.

But it's not ambiguous

show your process in getting that answer and then we'll see where you went horribly wrong

Literally designed to trigger people of different educational backgrounds. In europe, we study with "/" instead of "÷", which means that everything outside of unbracketed additions and subtractions are under the slash, thus seen as the denominator of the fraction. So eurofags that don't study past. Highschool math assume it is treated the right way, rather than the stupid obelus division which just makes math slower for anyone who does math at least two fimensionally, rather than in a line. Right awnser is 17, but simply for using archaic math. And yes, I posted before reading longer than 30 seconds

lmfao this is video games

>CALCULATOR
nothing personell

It's 5 but nobody past 3rd grade uses ÷ because it's always ambiguous. This expression is mathematical bait.

It is, for the reasons stated numerous times in this thread. There might be a right answer, but that doesn't mean the expression wasn't designed to confuse the reader and cause exactly the argument you guys are having in this thread. Do you think OP would have started this thread with a totally unambiguous math problem? It's bait.

Would never pass year 1 college math. It's 17, put it on a calculator and stfu. Wolframalpha (where the problem originates) gives 17.
Because the people who get 5 are retards for this exact reason. They think because you touch brackets you get priority or that somehow multiplication goes before division even though they are equivalent.

It is the same, 2x and 2*x is the same expression mathematically

To express what you mean, brackets must be included, 16/(2x).

This is an unspoken standard that you would knew if you study any science engineering or mathematic related subject in University. All modern computer calculators aligns with my view as well. Try "16/2(2)" on any calculator, it would give 16 as the answer

If you have taken any course above MATH-95 you would know wolfram alpha is ultimate bait to get a failing grade.

17

That's because you're typing it in wrong. Technology can't fix your mistakes, only solve what you put in

If you think it's anything other than 5 then you should unironically kill yourself.