Any video games with brain busters?

So are jannies stupid enough to allow these threads? they're obviously not video game related, even OP knows no one will answer his dumb question.
fucking jannies

Have sex.

Correct

Retards

Don't you mongoloids actually know Pedmas?

Attached: Untitled.png (1200x816, 50K)

80.

Math blasters, according to this thread.

please excuse my dirty anal sphincter

dilate

The highest math class I've ever taken was pre-calc.

I make $114k a year, after taxes and deductions. Math is for incels.

My high school taught it as Pemdas

>being this retarded
16/2(2)+1 is read as 16/2*2+1 since the parenthesis are no longer nested once no more EDMAS actions exist within it.

....Zero?

Attached: 1551135503629.png (302x270, 101K)

>says PEMDAS
>fucks up PEMDAS at the fourth line down
Retard

Another retard

Attached: file.png (1008x163, 14K)

You put that in a calculator

The bracket should be part of the denominator, otherwise it'd be multiplying 16 in the OP

It's 5

its 5 if you're big brained

NERDS

No one said 81. What the fuck?

16÷2[8-3(4-2)]+1
Parenthesis First
16÷2[8-3*2]+1
If multiple signs exist in the parenthesis we do MD first
16÷2[8-6]+1
Finish parenthesis
16÷2*2+1
Now you just solve left to right as Addition Subtraction come last regardless and Division Multiplication are functionally the same thing which is why kids learn both PEDMAS and PEMDAS
8*2+1
16+1
17

what even is the point of math and math teachers in the age of computer? get with the times,grampas

These threads always go for 200+ posts, if not all the way to bump limit, because people will argue over whatever two reasonable outcomes that one could come to based on the vague phrasing/formula of the problem.

In this case, it boils down to the 16/2(2) bit and whether people solve left to right like
>16 / 2 * 2
or multiply the 2s first assuming that the obelus (the "÷") represents
>16
>------
>2*2
Really, the obelus sucks, and people shouldn't use it. The best answer is to call OP a faggot for posting bait.

They're the same thing because M/D and A/S are done together and simply left to right. You could say Pedmsa too, but it's harder to say.

Why should the brackets be part of the denominator? 16/2(2) is equal to 16/2*2, not 16/(2*2). You have to do the operations from left to right.

Are you serious?

Communicating poorly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not intelligence

It should be 16 over 2*(whatever), I know the OP is badly written but even so people can't just separate the bracket from the 2 considering how close they are together

It's 16 / (2(8-3(4-2)))

17, was this even necessary? If you follow simple pemdas

Maths teacher here, because that computer is wrong. It's not (16/2)*(whatever), it's 16/(2*(whatever)

16 over 2*2 is blatantly wrong notation though. You need parenthesis.
16/2*2 can only be split up as
>16
>---- X 2
>2
To get the alternative you speak of you need 16/(2*2)

So A/BX = AX/B

I'm pretty sure there's a mathematics rule that says that's not how division works.

Math here, computer is right

Well it changes the entire thing when a set of brackets gets left out. That goes beyond being badly written.

I'm just repeating what I've seen other people say.

This is why showing the division sign like that is fucking retarded. The correct answer is 5 though. Everything between 16 and the '+1' is part of the denominator

I have a masters in math and make $500k

After taxes

Fuck what anyone says, 4/2(1+1) should be 1

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

There's confusion in the thread due to the equation notation being vague. Some people assume that the equation is actually 16 / {2[8 - 3(4 - 2)] + 1}, though there's nothing in that notation that directly says 1 is part of the equation.

This is a much more clear-cut method of writing the equation, where the 1 is without uncertainty not part of the quantity being divided. I suspect OP made the notation vague on purpose to try and bait some anons into getting the incorrect response.

Attached: file.png (821x411, 9K)

I got 5

How is 16/2(2) = 16/1 you fucking idiot

Haha I should fucking proofread my posts before lecturing others on math I'm fucking dumb

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

My point about the notation being vague is still correct in that post.

>2[2] = 1
Are you fucking retarded? You're right in showing how it should be correctly notated. But it works out to 5.

16/2*x means (16*x)/2, retard, now 16/(2x) is what you're looking for.

>16 / 2[2] + 1
>16 / 1 + 1
You're gonna have to explain that one chief

Because 16*2= 32
32/2= 16
You fucking retard.

>16 / 2(8-3(4-2))+1
Solve the innermost parenthesis first:

>16 / 2(8-3(2))+1
Again, solve the parenthesis, but in order to do so this time, we have to remember that multiplication comes before addition, even in parenthesis.

>16 / 2(8-6)+1 -> 16 / 2 (2) +1
With no further parenthesis, go left to right with PEMDAS, so we divide before we multiply.

>8(2)+1
PEMDAS says multiply

>16+1
Add

>17
Just remember your PEMDAS and take it step by step.

See I just didn't doublecheck my work and was speeding through it.

I keep getting 5. What am I doing wrong?

2(2) is one single number though, the parenthesis is part of the 2, meaning it needs to be solved first

He already fixed his post anyway, it's 5

>2/2 is not 1
What did user mean by this?

>division sign

Attached: nice bait.jpg (746x691, 34K)

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

16 / 4 + 1
4+1
5

this, la

>Mixed division and multiplication
>Similarly, there can be ambiguity in the use of the slash symbol / in expressions such as 1/2x.[5] If one rewrites this expression as 1 ÷ 2x and then interprets the division symbol as indicating multiplication by the reciprocal, this becomes:
>1 ÷ 2 × x = 1 × 1/2 × x = 1/2 × x.
>With this interpretation 1 ÷ 2x is equal to (1 ÷ 2)x.[1][6] 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.
>For example, the manuscript submission instructions for the Physical Review journals state that multiplication is of higher precedence than division with a slash,[7] and this is also the convention observed in prominent physics textbooks such as the Course of Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshitz and the Feynman Lectures on Physics.[a]
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
Never understand how this gets argued over when there's a wiki for it

>strawman
A/B(X)=A/B*X you retard.

When you show the division sign like that it is purposely vague. The retards saying "XD jUsT rEmEmBeR yOuR PEMDAS LoL" still don't get why it is just as correct to interpret everything after the 16 and before the +1 as the denominator underneath 16. Stop falling for bait math threads. Stop using division notation like that.

t. Math Degree

16 ÷ 2[8 - 3(4 - 2)] + 1
8[8 - 3(4 - 2)] + 1
[64 - 24(4 - 2)] + 1
64 - 96 + 48 + 1
17
ez

Attached: cool.png (627x596, 17K)

So many people going from 16/2[2]+1 to 8[2]+1 to equal 17.

Did you fucktards forget about terms? 16/2[2]+1 would go to 16/4+1 to 4+1 to 5

Attached: wrong.gif (220x330, 46K)

Just because 2 * (1+1) and 2(1+1) have the same results doesn't mean they should be interchangeable. If the first example is what they intended, that's what they should have wrote down.

16/2(2) is potentially ambiguous
2(2) implies parentheses around it for me aka 16/(2(2))
yawn

It's still wrong, see or

Where do you see the division sign you fucking retard?

But that's literally not true and that's why you put parenthesis on your denominators.

Is that the oedulus or the solidus operator.
If it's oedulus that is parsed as
(16) / (2[8-3(4-2)]+1
Since the oedulus is defined as divide everything to the left by everything to the right.
Some calculators have a different key for oedulus and solidus.

Also is distribution considered higher priority than multiplication, because it should be. Cause if it is then the result is different.
3(4-2) is not the same thing as 3*(4-2)
So you'd expand the distribution first.
This is relevant in examples like:
2/2(1+1)
If distribution is higher then you need to expand the parenthesis first, so you get
2/2 + 2, notice how no parenthesis get added, so you get 3.
But if you were taught wrong that 2(1+1) is the same thing as 2*(1+1) then you'd get 1.
Most scientific calculators get distribution right.

81

Nothing, that's correct.

16/2*2 = (16*2)/2 because of how it's written. See Now, it would be 16/4 if it was written 16/(2*everything else).

So the huge discrepancy here is due to the variable interpretations that this can have? How does that work

user, you replied to my correction with my uncorrected post.

Whenever you see an obelus (÷) you can be sure is a troll question.

Attached: 1558721672868.png (380x380, 69K)

1.8

It's 17 you brainlets.

Distribute the 2 into the parentheses. It's 5.

Those getting 5, the thing is that the notation is disigenuous. While it ends up reading 16 / 2[2] +1 it really is 16 / 2 * 2 + 1 because the parenthesis still counts as a multiplication and therefore is calculated in the same PEMDAS tier as the division, and not before.

The point is that entering it into a calculator like that isn't necessarily capturing the formula. Using the division sign in the way the op does can be (correctly) interpreted as the entire next term of combined multiplication being the denominator under 16. It's purposely vague notation.

16
8
64
63
252
250
251
It's Celebi

Following standard notation (PEMDAS) your operations are paired based on priority and carried out in left to right order.

As such, in the expression 16/2(2), you must perform the first operation observed from left to right (division), before the second operation (multiplication).

Uniting like terms does not come into play here, as we are not balancing an equation, we are simplifying a phrase.

Distributive Property and Order of Operations are complementary. I have no clue what you mean by 3(4-2) is not the same thing as 3*(4-2).

3(4-2)
3*4-3*2
12-6=6

3*(4-2)
3*2=6

So fucking many brainlets itt

Nothing, this is mostly people trolling who have given retards confidence to shout the wrong answer. It’s great bait because people are dumb and will argue over this.

I know, right? Imagine taking a troll questions seriously.

The result is 5
Anyone who says otherwise doesnt know shit about the invisible parentheses.

I’m just wanna learn man

Sick.

Attached: hug.png (500x500, 153K)

>Actual academic literature says just use multiplication first if you have division fuckery
>Whole thread ignores it and keeps bickering
Yes the post is written to be confusing but you fucks act like actual mathematicians wouldn't have come across this before. There's an answer. It would be 17 going by this consensus method.

>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.
Apparently, even they don't all agree.

Attached: Today, everyday.jpg (294x313, 20K)

16/2(8-6)
16/2(8) - 16/2(6)
16(8)/2 - 16(6)/2
16 * 8/2 - 16 * 6/2
16 *4 - 16 * 3
16(4-3)
16(1)
16

This seems perfectly reasonable.

Check out this 5

Attached: check out this 5.png (821x1225, 81K)

Both numbers have to be in parentheses for them to take priority
16/2(2)+1 is the same equation as 16/2*2+1
The correct answer is 17
To get 5 it NEEDS to be written as 16/(2*2)+1

I'm not sure why you're one of the only people who gets this. A division sign doesn't just mean everything after is under the 16 that's fucking retarded. Good job having an actual brain user.

I've never seen a more wrong way to solve this equation

Thanks for triggering my flashbacks to math class OP.

>Looks like user got an F on the math test. Now go up to the board and solve the problem in front of the class.
>class laughs

Attached: 20100908112226_1452.png (271x234, 32K)

But you didn't apply PEMDAS though

Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally

We do. It's not her fault she has autism.