Let's see how how smart Yea Forums is. You should be able to get this right

A= (-29, -25, -5). Didn't apply the x-y+z rule tought. Got it right?

Augment Identity and rref, or do the sensible thing and use matlab

Forgot to tag the post

81 nerds

Sure?
PEDMAS

Why is it a vector

Attached: 1552557047809.jpg (778x813, 362K)

Because that's all i can remember about determinants, (solving vector coordinates)

It’s pemdas you fag

its a 3x3 matrix user. thats like saying, i need a calculator to add two numbers

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
Let's not fuck up on middle school level math please.

Its 5

Close the thread

81

Attached: CC3BB28D-9268-4650-8219-82A08379E324.jpg (1125x825, 558K)

0.8

Y'all dumbasses in this thread

you didn’t multiply the 2 [2], it’s peMDas, not peDMas

I don't read Jew

16 / 2 [ 8-3 ((2))] + 1
>(((2)))
I knew it, they are behind every problem

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

16/2(2) is not the same as 16/4, the (2) is in the numerator.

211?

Attached: dumb.jpg (347x347, 81K)

Attached: homework.jpg (3451x1973, 1.53M)

I got 5, but I'm drunk.

>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

MD doesn't mean multiplication goes before division it's whatever comes first same for AS

itt: a math troll thread with obvious simple solution so no discussion of pemdas trolls against bodmas trolls against common core trolls against smart but playing dumb trolls against dumb but playing smart trolls start
what has /b become.

it's 17 btw. every 6th grader knows, and it's not ambigous in any way.
troll harder
i r8 2/8 for making me answer

>what has /b become.
b/ has always been like this

aH-hey um user, can I ask you for a favour? C-come join this /pol/ Discord server please, it's a really good server I promise! We can maybe even laugh at the Christchurch shooting livestream together if you did... so join using this link right now:
discord
.gg/ymxFyhu

g

Attached: join degeneracy akarin 7.png (320x360, 219K)

one sec. let me check your work

not worth any of my time or thought, math is for faggot tryhards

do it like 1 + 16 / 2 - 2 - 8 - 3/4

lots of calculators will do implied multiplication (omitted multiplication sign) before other multiplication or division even though they are technically supposed to be read from left to right. this makes for a more intuitive reading.
for example if i have a variable x and i write
>1/2x
i usually want it to be read like
>1/(2x)
even though the division '/' is left of the implied multiplication. if it was solved from left to right i'd have
>1/2x=(1/2)x=x/2
different calculators will handle these differently so keep it in mind.

also this is literally the only issue with these kinds of posts.

Just no. Grow up and go back to a PROPER school!

Attached: 2w8tik.jpg (888x499, 113K)

> ÷

Attached: 1545963019967.jpg (500x491, 88K)

this, wtf is wrong with all of you?

81

its 1.3 all of you are retarded

Holy fuck, you are retarded.

1st - Parentheses
2nd - Exponents
3rd - Multiplication and Division (Left to Right)
4th - Addition and Subtraction (Left to Right)

How are people this stupid with Google literally at their fingertips?

5

17

Attached: Capture+_2019-03-17-05-14-40.png (665x986, 80K)

9/5

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

If you disagree please tell me what line contains an error

Attached: 0_purplegreenwhite-gradient_shop_preview.jpg (470x403, 120K)

It is ambiguous and therefore not solvable. PEDMAS is an educational tool— not an authoritative rule of mathematical convention.
math.berkeley.edu/~gbergman/misc/numbers/ord_ops.html

line 6:
16 / 4 +1

Do y’all not distribute?

17

6

What do the square brackets mean

E=mc2/2+2=x
A1= [4 4 6]§~n
X=3

I think this is right.

ITT: A bullshit equation that uses intentional ambiguity to reveal differences in how math is taught.

5

It's just letting you know there's functions inside that function.

17

This

81

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

Weren't you supposed to divide 16 by 2 and then multiply it by 2? I thought the multiplicatons and the divisions were made liniarily.

H-hey um user, can I ask you for a favour? C-come join this /pol/ Discord server please, it's a really good server I promise! We can maybe even laugh at the Christchurch shooting livestream together if you did... so join using this link right now:
discord
.gg/ymxFyhu

i

Attached: join degeneracy akarin 9.png (320x360, 219K)

They are just like parentheses, but used when parentheses are already used in the equation to avoid confusion.

Parentheses first always.

Multiplication and division are treated left to right except when there is a number next to brackets it is treated before a division sign. Eg if you said 16 divided by 2a and in this case a=2 then you’d say 4 not 16

that's not what it means. you solve what's inside the parentheses first, not what's multiplied with it.
(2) is just 2, so 16/2(2) is just 16/2*2 which is 8*2 which is 16 since the last 2 is in the numerator and not denominator.
but you know that

Good troll or retard. Unsure. But it is 5

80 + 1 is the simplest way to put it, and 81 is the correct answer

I see.

Attached: dont-panic-the-answer-is-42-1.png (1366x1366, 98K)

Everyone else says you're wrong.

Dont listen to that guy he's retarded.

low effort

Fucking American education. I've never heard of "PEMDAS" or "PEDMAS" or whatever shit you get taught in school. Where I grew up we were just taught how math works.

Attached: 17.png (813x94, 5K)

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
R we done

>learning math ass backwords

This is correct.
Please americans vote for school reformation

Yea Forums demonstrates how it's closest characteristic to Stephen Hawking is purely physical.

Attached: thehawk.jpg (233x348, 25K)

16/2[8-3(4-2)]+1
4[5(2)]+1
4[10]+1
420
square root of 420=402

ITT: niggers are solving homework for an underage faggot.

Nice job.

Nothing can beat Photomath

Attached: Screenshot_2019-03-17-04-57-21.png (1080x2160, 145K)

basic ass matrices

17

you don't say

You're all retarded. It says to simplify not to solve.

16 / 2[5(2)] + 1
or
16 / 20 + 1

81

Attached: d9240.jpg (225x225, 8K)

This guy gets it. Solved is 1.8

17, hahahahahha the white "master'' race

Attached: 7818a4679694aae1a006e77d1d82509a.jpg (564x848, 76K)

16/(2(8-3(2)))+1
16/(2*(8-6))+1
16/(2*2)+1
16/4+1
4+1
5

Attached: file.png (158x59, 2K)

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

Attached: file.png (153x50, 2K)

16 divided by 2 comes before 2 times 2
Idiot

your notation sucks but most would agree that it is
so 5

Nice work, I fucking hate the Gauss elimination method, would sooner use the determinant
method but the answer is spot on!

kill yourself faggot, its a basic equation that is very much solvable if you're not fucking retarded, which you appear to be.

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

8*(8-3*2)+1
8*2 + 1
17

You are abusing ambiguity related to the marking of mathematical operations, and we both know it. This is a loathsome practice, and you need to be ashamed of yourself.

However, in cases like this, we must obey the order of operations, and realise that a multiplication outside of parentheses is not applied before other operations. As such, the result is 17.

I was under the impression that in cases like this you would group all the multiplication together and put it under the 16 giving 5

Attached: file.png (150x55, 2K)

The ambiguity arises from precisely those two things: the implied multiplication before the parentheses and the fucking abhorrent way of marking the division. But, since no other context or anything else is given, the first assumption has to be the strict, by the book one, not trying to guess based on the implicitness of the expression. (As in, I'm right and if the person who wrote the expression disagrees, he's the one at fault. If you receive the same answer as what was intended, it just means the two of you agree.)

To have 16 divided by all that you need one more parenthesis. When you solve what’s in the parantheses you get 16/2*2+1, and from here you go with the normal order. It’s (16/2)*2, not 16/(2*2).

¾

I was under the impression that such parenthesis are implied?