it’s (8 / 2) * 4
It's 8/2(2+2)=8/(4+4) or 8/2(2+2)=8/2(4)=8/(2x4)
I think I’m gonna trust someone from Harvard
So you're going with the appeal to authority argument - ok, got it.
But if you're gonna do that then make sure you check out Cajori's credentials, since that's, you know, who we both quoted.
argue with some of the actual mathematicians in here
You mean the dude who claimed to be, and was quoting wikipedia? BWAHAHAHAHA
Only way to get 1 is to violate left to right on multiplication and division
Actually the only way to get 16 is to ignore one of more rules of Maths - sometimes it's Terms, sometimes it's The Distributive Law, but always something. If you follow all the rules of Maths you get 1.
[…] the question is ambiguous. There is no right or wrong if there are different conflicting rules. The only ones who claim that there is one rule are the ones which are wrong!
https://people.math.harvard.edu/~knill/pedagogy/ambiguity/index.html
Yeah nah. Actual Maths textbooks and proofs - did you not notice the complete lack of references to textbooks in the blog? It's funny that he mentions Cajori though, given Cajori has a direct reference to Terms #MathsIsNeverAmbiguous
The crappier calculator is the one generating the incorrect answer
Which would be the app written by the programmer who didn't check his Maths was correct, as opposed to the calculator made by a company who, you know, makes calculators.
2x works the way it does because there’s a variable involved, and natural reading of that treats it as a single entity
Just like 2(2+2) is also a single Term.
no variables in the equation in the post, there are only definite numbers
Pronumerals literally stand in for numerals, and work exactly the same way. There is nothing special about choosing a pronumeral to represent a numeral.
8/2(2+2) is nothing more than 8/2×(2+2).
They're completely different actually. 2(2+2) is a single term in the denominator, (2+2) - which you separated from the 2 with an x - is a now 3rd term which is now in the numerator, having been separated from the 2 which is in the denominator.
There is nothing special about 2(…, this is not the equivalent of 2x
So what's it equal to when x=2+2?
2( is simply 2×(
No it isn't. 2(a+b)=(2a+2b) The Distributive Law
But there actually is only 1 right answer, and unfortunately for the person you're replying to it's 1.
you’re a slow reader
I see you like to use made-up "facts", just like the blog does. Is that the best you can come up with after repeatedly insisting I should read it? (which yes, would've been a huge waste of time, exactly as I said, had I not turned it into a positive use of time by writing a fact check about it. Alleged fake news turns out to be... fake - who would've thought? Oh that's right, me :-) )
I’ll read your comment when you read the article
So, did you read it now? Or are you a "slow reader" and I need to wait longer for your responses?
I'm building up quite a collection of these, so far from being a once-off issue. In other words, still looking for any ideas on how to fix this
Are you talking about the lack of indentation? I don't know why it does that. I tried using with the same result. I'd fix it if I knew how!
Well, I just had an issue then here with and eventually found backslash worked - I'll give that a go (not sure if I already tried it before).
Yes, one is correct :-)