You must log in or # to comment.
I feel like I am getting trolled
Isn’t 17 the actual right answer?
Exactly
So it’s just an unfunny meme?
It’s engagement bait.
Not even a meme.
Some people insist there’s no “correct” order for the basic arithmetic operations. And worse, some people insist the correct order is parenthesis first, then left to right.
Both of those sets of people are wrong.
Hopefully you can see where their confusion might come from, though. PEMDAS is more P-E-MD-AS. If you have a bunch of unparenthesized addition and subtraction, left to right is correct. A lot of like, firstgrader math problems are just basic problems that are usually left to right (but should have some extras to highlight PEMDAS somewhere I’d hope).
So they’re mostly telling you they only remember as much math as a small child that barely passed math exercizes.
PE(MD)(AS)
Now just remember to account for those parentheses first…
PE(MD)(AS) Now just remember to account for those parentheses first
Those Brackets don’t matter. I don’t know why people insist it does
They do, it’s grouping those operations to say that they have the same precedence. Without them it implies you always do addition before subtraction, for example.
They do, it’s grouping those operations to say that they have the same precedence
They don’t. It’s irrelevant that they have the same priority. MD and DM are both correct, and AS and SA are both correct. 2+3-1=4 is correct, -1+3+2=4 is correct.
Without them it implies you always do addition before subtraction, for example
And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, for example. You still always get the correct answer 🙄
Uh, no. I don’t think you’ve thought this through, or you’re just using (AS) without realizing it. Conversations around operator precedence can cause real differences in how expressions are evaluated and if you think everyone else is just being pedantic or is confused then you might not underatand it yourself.
Take for example the expression 3-2+1.
With (AS), 3-2+1 = (3-2)+1 = 1+1 = 2. This is what you would expect, since we do generally agree to evaluate addition and subtraction with the same precedence left-to-right.
With SA, the evaluation is the same, and you get the same answer. No issue there for this expression.
But with AS, 3-2+1 = 3-(2+1) = 3-3 = 0. So evaluating addition with higher precedence rather than equal precedence yields a different answer.
=====
Some other pedantic notes you may find interesting:
There is no “correct answer” to an expression without defining the order of operations on that expression. Addition, subtraction, etc. are mathematical necessities that must work the way they do. But PE(MD)(AS) is something we made up; there is no actual reason why that must be the operator precedence rule we use, and this is what causes issues with communicating about these things. People don’t realize that writing mathematical expressions out using operator symbols and applying PE(MD)(AS) to evaluate that expression is a choice, an arbitrary decision we made, rather than something fundamental like most everything else they were taught in math class. See also Reverse Polish Notation.
Your second example, -1+3+2=4, actually opens up an interesting can of worms. Is negation a different operation than subtraction? You can define it that way. Some people do this, with a smaller, slightly higher subtraction sign before a number indicating negation. Formal definitions sometimes do this too, because operators typically have a set number of arguments, so subtraction is a-b and negation is -c. This avoids issues with expressions starting with a negative number being technically invalid for a two-argument definition of subtraction. Alternatively, you can also define -1 as a single symbol that indicates negative one, not as a negation operation followed by a positive one. These distinctions are for the most part pedantic formalities, but without them you could argue that -1+3+2 evaluated with addition having a higher precedence than subtraction is -(1+3+2) = -6. Defining negation as a separate operation with higher precedence than addition or subtraction, or just saying it’s subtraction and all subtraction has higher prexedence than addition, or saying that -1 is a single symbol, all instead give you your expected answer of 4. Isn’t that interesting?
If you have a bunch of unparenthesized addition and subtraction, left to right is correct
If you have a bunch of unparenthesized addition and subtraction, left to right doesn’t matter.
1 + 2 + 3 = 3 + 2 + 1
True, but as with many things, something has to be the rule for processing it. For many teachers as I’ve heard, order of appearance is ‘the rule’ when commutative properties apply. … at least until algebra demands simplification, but that’s a different topic.
order of appearance is ‘the rule’ when commutative properties apply
That’s because students often make mistakes with signs when they do it in a different order, so we tell them to stick to left to right
If you have a bunch of unparenthesized addition and subtraction, left to right doesn’t matter.
Right, because 1-2-3=3-2-1.
You flipped the sign on the 3 and 1.
I did not flip any signs, merely reversed the order in which the operations are written out. If you read the right side from right to left, it has the same meaning as the left side from left to right.
Hell, the convention that the sign is on the left is also just a convention, as is the idea that the smallest digit is on the right (which should be a familiar issue to programmers, if you look up big endian vs little endian)
I did not flip any signs
Yes you did! 😂
merely reversed the order in which the operations are written out
No, merely reversing the order gives -3-2+1 - you changed the signs on the 1 and 3.
If you read the right side from right to left, it
Starts with -3, which you changed to +3
it has the same meaning as the left side from left to right
when you don’t change any of the signs it does 😂
Hell, the convention that the sign is on the left is also just a convention
Nope, it’s a rule of Maths, Left Associativity.
Right, because 1-2-3=3-2-1
No, 1-2-3=-3-2+1. You changed the signs on the 1 and the 3.
addition and subtraction, left to right is correct
You can do addition and subtraction in any order and it’s still correct
I mean, arithmetic order is just convention, not a mathematical truth. But that convention works in the way we know, yes, because that’s what’s… well… convention
Social conventions are real, well defined things. Some mathematicians like to pretend they aren’t, while using a truckload of them; that’s a hypocritical opinion.
That’s not to say you can’t change them. But all of basic arithmetic is a social convention, you can redefine the numbers and operations any time you want too.
Social conventions are real, well defined things
So are the laws of nature, that Maths arises from
Some mathematicians like to pretend they aren’t, while using a truckload of them; that’s a hypocritical opinion
No, you making false accusations against Mathematicians is a strawman
That’s not to say you can’t change them
You can change the conventions, you cannot change the rules
But all of basic arithmetic is a social convention
Nope, law of nature. Even several animals know how to count.
you can redefine the numbers and operations any time you want too
And you end up back where you started, since you can’t change the laws of nature
I mean, arithmetic order is just convention
Nope, rules arising from the definition of the operators in the first place.
not a mathematical truth
It most certainly is a mathematical truth!
But that convention works in the way we know, yes, because that’s what’s… well… convention
The mnemonics are conventions, the rules are rules
The rules are socially agreed upon. They are not a mathematical truth. There is nothing about the order of multiple different operators in the definition of the operators themselves. An operator is simply just a function or mapping, and you can order those however you like. All that matters is just what calculation it is that you’re after
The rules are socially agreed upon
Nope! Universal laws.
They are not a mathematical truth.
Yes they are! 😂
There is nothing about the order of multiple different operators in the definition of the operators themselves
That’s exactly where it is. 2x3 is defined as 2+2+2, therefore if you don’t do Multiplication before Addition you get wrong answers
you can order those however you like.
No you can’t! 😂 2+3x4=5x4=20, Oops! WRONG ANSWER 😂
All that matters is just what calculation it is that you’re after
And if you want the right answer then you have to obey the order of operations rules
That’s a very simplistic view of maths. It’s convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
Just because a definition of an operator contains another operator, does not require that operator to take precedence. As you pointed out, 2+3*4 could just as well be calculated to 5*4 and thus 20. There’s no mathematical contradiction there. Nothing broke. You just get a different answer. This is all perfectly in line with how maths work.
You can think of operators as functions, in that case, you could rewrite 2+3*4 as add(2, mult(3, 4)), for typical convention. But it could just as well be mult(add(2, 3), 4), where addition takes precedence. Or, similarly, for 2*3+4, as add(mult(2, 3), 4) for typical convention, or mult(2, add(3, 4)), where addition takes precedence. And I hope you see how, in here, everything seems to work just fine, it just depends on how you rearrange things. This sort of functional breakdown of operators is much closer to mathematical reality, and our operators is just convention, to make it easier to read.
Something in between would be requiring parentheses around every operator, to enforce order. Such as (2+(3*4)) or ((2+3)*4)
That’s a very simplistic view of maths
The Distributive Law and Arithmetic is very simple.
It’s convention
Nope, a literal Law. See screenshot
Isn’t a Maths textbook, and has many mistakes in it
Just because a definition of an operator contains another operator, does not require that operator to take precedence
Yes it does 😂
2+3x4=2+3+3+3+3=14 by definition of Multiplication
2+3x4=5x4=20 Oops! WRONG ANSWER 😂
As you pointed out, 2+34 could just as well be calculated to 54 and thus 20
No, I pointed out that it can’t be calculated like that, you get a wrong answer, and you get a wrong answer because 3x4=3+3+3+3 by definition
There’s no mathematical contradiction there
Just a wrong answer and a right one. If I have 1 2 litre bottle of milk, and 4 3 litre bottles of milk, even young kids know how to count up how many litres I have. Go ahead and ask them what the correct answer is 🙄
Nothing broke
You got a wrong answer when you broke the rules of Maths. Spoiler alert: I don’t have 20 litres of milk
You just get a different answer
A provably wrong answer 😂
This is all perfectly in line with how maths work
2+3x4=20 is not in line with how Maths works. 2+3+3+3+3 does not equal 20 😂
add(2, mult(3, 4)), for typical
rule
But it could just as well be mult(add(2, 3), 4), where addition takes precedence
And it gives you a wrong answer 🙄 I still don’t have 20 litres of milk
And I hope you see how, in here, everything seems to work just fine
No, I see quite clearly that I have 14 litres of milk, not 20 litres of milk. Even a young kid can count up and tell you that
it just depends on how you rearrange things
Correctly or not
our operators is just convention
The notation is, the rules aren’t
Something in between would be requiring parentheses around every operator, to enforce order
No it wouldn’t. You know we’ve only been using brackets in Maths for 300 years, right? Order of operations is much older than that
Such as (2+(3*4))
Which is exactly how they did it before we started using Brackets in Maths 😂 2+3x4=2+3+3+3+3=14, not complicated.
Well, this is just a writing standard that is globally agreed on,
The writing rules are defined by humans not by natural force
(That one thing and another thing are two things, is a rule from nature, as comparison)this is just a writing standard that is globally agreed on
No, it’s a universal rule of Maths
The writing rules are defined by humans not by natural force
Maths is for describing natural forces, and is subject to those laws
That one thing and another thing are two things, is a rule from nature
Yep, there are even some animals who understand that, and all of Maths is based upon it.
Some people insist there’s no “correct” order for the basic arithmetic operations.
And those people are wrong
And worse, some people insist the correct order is parenthesis first, then left to right
As per Maths textbooks
Both of those sets of people are wrong
All Maths textbooks are wrong?? 😂
There is no answer. Because there is no question.
Because there is no question
So Maths test says “2+3 ____”, and you write “that’s not a question” on the blank line?? 😂
That is a problem, tho
I know the solution
Presuming PEMDAS is our order of operations and the 5 next to the parentheses indicates multiplication…
2+5(8-5) -> 2+5(3) -> 2+15=17
Other than adding a multiplication indicator next to the left parentheses for clarification (I believe it’s * for programming and text chat purposes, a miniature “x” or dot for pen and paper/traditional calculators), this seems fine, yeah.
…I worry about how many people may not understand how to solve equations like these.
I prefer BM-DAS, no one’s out here doing exponents, and no one calls brackets “parentheses”…
The way I was taught growing up, brackets are [these]. Parenthesis are (these).
Yes, technically the latter are also brackets. But they can also be called parenthesis, whereas the former is exclusively a bracket. So we were taught to call them separate words to differentiate while doing equations.
I’m a theoretical physics grad student and a night school maths teacher, I have never heard this distinction. People in academia around me call them round and square brackets.
It’s a US vs UK (and probably others) distinction. The ( ) are almost never called brackets in the US, unless it’s a regional thing I’m not aware of. Also the [ ] didn’t get used in any math classes I was in the US up through calculus except for matrices.
Interesting! Nobody at my institute is a native English speaker. They’re from several European and some Asian and south American countries.
The way I was taught growing up, brackets are [these]. Parenthesis are (these)
They’re all brackets. Parentheses is actually the part inside the ().
That’s not even an equation, just basic arithmetic
Technically not algebra, right? Algebra is where you move things around and solve for variables, and that kind of thing. This is just arithmetic.
Technically not algebra, right?
No, it actually is Algebra. The Distributive Law isn’t taught to students until they start on Algebra.
This is just arithmetic
There’s no a(b+c) in Arithmetic.
I don’t think you’re right. The wiki page literally uses a similar equation as an example of “elementary arithmetic.” It also uses a similar one, but with variables, as an example in “elementary algebra.” That implies that yes, this is arithmetic, and the introduction of variables is what makes it algebra.
It doesn’t matter what course finally teaches it to you. That could be just out of convenience, not by definition part of that domain. It’s been ages since I took it, though I could swear I learned this in pre-algebra (meaning before algebra), or earlier. I could be wrong on this though. Again, it’s been a very long time.
I don’t think you’re right
You don’t think Maths textbooks are right??
The wiki page
is full of disinformation. Note that they literally never cite any Maths textbooks
as an example of “elementary arithmetic.”
And whichever Joe Blow My Next Door Neighbour wrote that is wrong
as an example in “elementary algebra.”
Algebra isn’t taught until high school
That implies that yes, this is arithmetic,
No, anything with a(b+c) is Algebra, taught in Year 7
the introduction of variables is what makes it algebra
and the rules of Algebra, which includes a(b+c)=(ab+ac). There is no such rule in Arithmetic.
It doesn’t matter what course finally teaches it to you
It does if you’re going to argue over whether it’s Arithmetic or Algebra.
not by definition part of that domain
The Distributive Law is 100% part of Algebra. It’s one of the very first things taught (right after pronumerals and substitution).
It’s been ages since I took it
I teach it. We teach it to Year 7, at the start of Algebra
You’re very rude. Also, Ill informed, and you think you’re smarter than you are. For example, this:
as an example in “elementary algebra.”
Algebra isn’t taught until high school
Elementary doesn’t mean elementary school. Do you think elementary particles are the ones they teach you in elementary school? Lol. Elementary means fundamental or basic.
The clouds could part, revealing an unmistakable divine presence, where a herald of angels trumpet, and the creator of the universe tells this guy he’s being a hypocritical crank, and he’d bicker until god himself said “Stuff this” and moved on.
You’re very rude
What do you expect to happen when you call a Maths teacher wrong about Maths?
Ill informed
Maths teachers are ill informed about Maths?? 😂
Elementary means fundamental or basic
Which therefore contradicts your argument about it being part of Arithmetic, which is taught in elementary school, Algebra isn’t
Fair enough, I’ve heard “math problem” and “math equation” used interchangeably.
Also you would be surprised how many people do not know basic algebra, at least in the US rofl
You. You are one of them bc you do not know what an equation is.
There is no algebra here. This is arithmetic.
When I made my example, I used an algebraic expression, but yeah, the original question was arithmetic, sorry. Not very good at explaining things XD
the original question was arithmetic
No, it’s actually Algebra. There is no a(b+c) in Arithmetic
You are one of them bc you do not know what an equation is.
You are one of the people who doesn’t know what a(b+c) is
There is no algebra here
Yes there is, 5(8-5).
This is arithmetic
There’s no a(b+c) in Arithmetic
Algebra has horrible syntax. Way too much implications.
Implications or assignment? They didn’t specify notation.
Implications or assignment?
Umm, neither?? 😂
They didn’t specify notation
a(b+c)=(ab+ac) is taught in Algebra, The Distributive Law, it can’t mean anything else - it’s the reverse operation to Factorising ab+ac=a(b+c).
I know. I was clowning on the dude mad about the arrows by offering one of numerous other meanings outside Boolean Algebra that sounded even more absurd in that context.
I know. I was clowning
Ok, fair enough. Some people seriously believe completely wrong things. A smiley goes a long way to showing intent
That’s not even an equation, just basic arithmetic
Basic Algebra actually. Students aren’t taught the Distributive Law until they start on Algebra
While I never failed a math class, I also never went past high school. When would your presumptions NOT be true?
Some forms of programming syntax, although there are the fringe cases where an equation (or function in programming) is represented by a symbol in conjunction with a parentheses input.
For example:
y(x) = 2*x+3
5+y(1) = 10, as 1 is substituted in for x in the prior equation.
Wouldn’t we just assume function expressions are always “in parenthesis”? Then it’s just a substitution and no rules were changed.
Wouldn’t we just assume function expressions are always “in parenthesis”?
No, because factorised Terms also are, ab+ac=a(b+c).
But factorised terms are multiplications, so they’re still following the same rules: a(b+c) = a*(b+c)
Example: 2(3+5)=16, and also 2*3+2*5=16
But factorised terms are multiplications,
No, they’re Distribution done in the Brackets step, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), now solve (ab+ac)
a(b+c) = a*(b+c)
Nope! a(b+c)=(ab+ac). 1/a(b+c)=1/(ab+ac), but 1/ax(b+c)=(b+c)/a.
23+25=16
(2x3+2x5) actually, or you’ll get the wrong answer when it follows a Division sign. See previous point
1/a(b+c)=1/(ab+ac)
Nope, that’s wrong. See https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=10%2F2(2%2B3) for reference.
And in some languages a number can be used as a name of a variable or a function, so it can be anything really
And in some languages a number can be used as a name of a variable or a function
Not in Maths it can’t
so it can be anything really
No, it can only be a Factorised Term, ab+ac=a(b+c). You also can’t call a function by any letter that you’ve used as a pronumeral
the 5 next to the parentheses indicates multiplication
No, it indicates Distribution, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), 5(8-5)=(5x8+5x5).
5 isn’t a valid function name, is obviously the right answer.
It could be a Church Numeral
How can you be sure it’s not defined when we only see one line?
They didn’t say it’s not defined, they said it’s not a valid name. Most languages don’t allow function names to start with a number, so 5 literally cannot be a function if that’s the case.
But that’s assuming this isn’t some really obscure language.
so 5 literally cannot be a function if that’s the case
No, but it can be and is a coefficient of the Term 5(8-5)
Depends on the language.
Depends on the language
No it doesn’t
Yes it does.
Yes it does
Says person who can’t cite a single example of it depending on the language 🙄
5 isn’t a valid function name, is obviously the right answer.
5 is a coefficient of the Term 5(8-5) is the correct answer
My education system didn’t fail me, I failed it.
I’m sorry but isn’t this elementary school math?
It became a meme a few years ago, people would post problems like this and argue about whose was right, as if there were no objective truth. It hurt to watch.
Arguably, there is no objective truth, since the symbols and rules of mathematics are assigned arbitrarily, and are basically a social contract, just like language!
…Wait, that means there’s no objective meaning of “objective”, crap
Arguably, there is no objective truth
Yes there is, just look in Maths textbooks
since the symbols and rules of mathematics are assigned arbitrarily
The signs are, the rules aren’t.
are basically a social contract, just like language!
Nope and nope. It’s a tool for calculating things, nothing like a language at all.
no objective meaning of “objective”
There is, in a dictionary, just like the rules of Maths are in Maths textbooks
In the rest of the world: yes.
In the US: I highly doubt it.
This is just basic math, if you can’t figure this out you’re probably 8 years old.
Definitely taught in parts of the US, it’s a regional thing though
Definitely taught in parts of the US, it’s a regional thing though
It’s a how good is your Maths teacher (who isn’t required to have any Maths qualifications) question. The rules are the same everywhere.
In the US: I highly doubt it
The issue in the U.S. isn’t Maths textbooks (same rules as everywhere else), it’s poor teaching. U.S. Maths teachers aren’t required to have any Maths qualifications, and they’ve been sliding in world rankings for more than a decade now.
Yeah, but even worse, you’re just talking about schools. You forgot about all the kids being home schooled, taught the earth is flat and an imaginary friend created everything in 7 days. Taught by parents who lack proper education themselves.
Also, it’s kinda obvious the rules of math aren’t different in the US. Even when they use an idiotic measuring system. If people don’t know how to use math properly, the issue clearly is the education and not math itself.
Yeah, but even worse, you’re just talking about schools
I’m talking about anyone at all in the U.S. is allowed to teach Maths without any Maths qualifications
You forgot about all the kids being home schooled
That happens in other countries too, and yet it’s the U.S. which has been sliding down the world rankings for more than a decade, the country that doesn’t require Maths teachers to have Maths qualifications.
Also, it’s kinda obvious the rules of math aren’t different in the US
That’s right, as proven by U.S. Maths textbooks
If people don’t know how to use math properly, the issue clearly is the education and not math itself
Partly right. there’s also people who just outright forgot the rules.
Partly right. there’s also people who just outright forgot the rules.
It doesn’t really matter, who needs math anyway? If the president can claim medicine prices will go down 1200%…
who needs math anyway?
Lots of people
If the president can claim medicine prices will go down 1200%
Did you miss seeing all the people who know Maths ridiculing him?
I was joking. I was being sarcastic. I was making fun of the US president because he doesn’t understand the concept op percentages. You know, something you learn during basic math in primary school. All while being the freaking president. A potato as a president is tearing down the already fucked up education system, replacing it with his propaganda.
The president’s net approval rating is -16%, up 2.3 points since last week. 41% approve, 57% disapprove, 4% not sure.
Source: The economist
This means only 57% consists of people who knew he was criminal pedophile piece of shit, or recently realized because they trusted his lies over facts before. That also means the rest (except the 1% of people who hold all the wealth and actually love him for getting even more rich at the cost of everyone else, thanks to him) are too dumb to understand what 2+2 is. Also the journalist from The Economist, even though the paper is British, because when you add up those percentages you get a total of a 102%.
By now the movie Idiocracy is no longer a comedy, it’s a prediction of the very near future of the US. An optimistic one, because in the movie they didn’t kill themselves or blew up the entire world.
I’m sorry but isn’t this elementary school math?
No, high school. The Distributive Law isn’t taught until Year 7
Pemdas, parenthesis first, for a total of 3. Then multiplication, 15, then addition. 17. What’s hard about this?
you go the other direction below the equator
I fucking suck at math and totally just re-proved it to myself with this problem lmao.
It didn’t make sense to me to multiply the 3 & the 5 with zero consideration for the “2”. I have ALWAYS struggled with the steps to solve these types of equations.
So the answer I got was 21. Some of us are just bad with numbers, I s’pose.
It didn’t make sense to me to multiply the 3 & the 5 with zero consideration for the “2”
That’s what the order of operations rules say to do. 2 doesn’t come into it until you get down to the Addition step.
What’s hard about it is people are fucking stupid.
No, it’s written poorly to drive engagement. People read left to right and try to do math that way too, but if you want to be mean to people who don’t remember things they learned in elementary school then never applied in real life you write it like OP.
(8-5)5+2
Far easier for most people, but then you don’t get the arguments…
It’s written the same way literally thousands of math problems in thousands of textbooks have written the same type of math problem for the last 100 years. OP did not write it that way to be “mean.” He wrote it that way because it’s a legit way to write it.
The operational order is fucked, the way I rewrote is more readable, even if you remember the order. The only reason you’d write the equation like that is to be mean, there’s no reason to write it like that unless you’re trying to trip people up.
You got it wrong on your first try, didn’t you? Lol, it’s not “mean” to write a math problem. The whole point of memorizing the order of operations is so that you can solve it no matter what order the equation is written in. No one wrote this problem on purpose just to make you fail to understand it, that’s dumb.
This was literally written for twitter content…
I just fail to see how you come to the conclusion that it was written in a “mean” way. It’s math, there is no “nice” way to write an equation.
The operational order is fucked
No it isn’t.
the way I rewrote is
Wrong.
The only reason you’d write the equation like that is
Because it’s written like that in Maths textbooks
there’s no reason to write it like that unless you’re
Obeying the rules of Maths, as found in Maths textbooks
No, it’s written poorly
No it isn’t
drive engagement
The engagement comes from people not remembering the rules of Maths
(8-5)5
That’s an invalid syntax. it’s 5(8-5) or 5x(8-5), nothing else. Why is it invalid? Imagine (8-5)-5 - am I multiplying what’s in the brackets by -5 (which gives -15), or subtracting 5 after doing the brackets (which gives -2)? Invalid syntax
Far easier for most people
Nope, it’s wrong for everyone, due to being an invalid syntax.
Pemdas, parenthesis first, for a total of 3
Nope, a total of 15.
Then multiplication
There isn’t any Multiplication, only Addition and Brackets (and Subtraction inside Brackets).
And what do you do with the number inside the when you want to get rid of it?
And what do you do with the number inside the when you want to get rid of it?
You literally must distribute the coefficient before you can do anything with what is inside to remove Brackets, as per The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), now you can work on getting rid of what is inside.
And what do you do with and and the b and then the a and the c? If you want to simplify the equation?
And what do you do with and and the b and then the a and the c? If you want to simplify the equation?
Add them, obviously 🙄
Guess I’ve been trolled.
And what do you do with and and the b and then the a and the c?
BTW, there’s no “the a and the b” and “the a and the c”, there’s ab and ac, which need to be added. If a=2, b=3, and c=4, we have 2(3+4)=(6+8)=14
Damn, its always the simple math problem post with like, almost 700 comments lmao
Precedences are just made up social constructs, don’t let the system restrict you, you can evaluate this expression however you want. Go wild.
Precedences are just made up social constructs
No they’re not. They’re a natural consequence of the definitions of the operators in the first place.
2+5 is 8, 8-5 is 3. 8×3 is 24.
But I also haven’t done this kind of math since 4th grade so I’m not sure if the joke is that this is the real answer or the answer you get doing it wrong… 🤔
BEDMAS
do it in the order of brackets, exponents, division, multiplication, addition, and subtraction.
So, brackets: (8-5) is 3, Multiplication: 3×5 is 15, addition: 15+2 is 17.
So, brackets: (8-5) is 3
No, it’s 5(8-5)=15
Multiplication
There is no Multiplication. Only Addition and Brackets (and Subtraction inside Brackets).
2+5 is 8
In which you just did Addition before Brackets, and is thus wrong
8-5 is 3
5(8-5) is 15
8×3
There is no 8x3. 2+5(8-5)=2+15=17
But 2 + 5 + 8 - 5 is 16 - 5 which is 11
Parentheses first then Division or Multiplication then add or subtract. PEDMAS
8-5= 3
3*5=15
15+2=17
then Division or Multiplication
There’s neither, only Addition and Brackets (and Subtraction inside Brackets).
8-5= 3 3*5=15
Nope. 2+5(8-5)=2+(40-25), The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)
Nope. 2+5(8-5)=2+(40-25), The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)
Post picture declaiming brackets as a multiplication symbol, then proceeds to solve the problem to the exact same solution using distributive law to multiply both numbers within the bracket. Fucking genius.
Post picture declaiming brackets as a multiplication symbol,
What do you think the “B” step in BEDMAS is for?? 😂
proceeds to solve the problem to the exact same solution using distributive law to
Distribute the coefficient over the terms inside the brackets
Fucking genius
Says someone who can’t tell the difference between Distributing, 2(1+3)=(2+6), and Multiplication, 2x(1+3)=2x4, 1/(2+6)=(1/8), 1/2x4=2
Gotta distribute:
2+(8+5)-(5+5)
2+13-0
15
Gotta distribute:
Yes, but…
2+(8+5)-(5+5)
You didn’t. 2+5(8-5)=2+(5x8-5x5)
it’sa badlywrittenmathproblemSeriously, every time this comes up and everyone makes a huge deal out of it, I keep thinking, “none of the people writing these better be teachers.” You have to be more clear than this.
Edit: ok, not so much this one. I just read the words and assumed the math problem was one of the ambiguous ones. Stand down, soldiers.
I think it’s reasonable if you consider the kind of physical situation it might represent.
You visit a farm and there are 2 unpackaged apples. There are also 5 packages that hold 8 apples but 5 have been removed from each. How many apples are there?
In fairness, this one isn’t nearly as bad as most of the ambiguous problems that get passed around on Facebook with multiple parentheticals and such.
Your word problem is excellent.
most of the ambiguous problems that get passed around
There aren’t any ambiguous ones, and anyone who thinks they’re ambiguous has forgotten the rules of Maths.
Not this one, there is no ambiguity here. Order of operations are all good.
Yea that is true but a lot of these questions use the division sign when they should just use a fraction and everything would have been easy to understand. If i see the devision sign and there are more than 2 elements like x=a÷b+5 i cry because if they just used x=a/(b+5) or x=a/b +5 it is just visible no ambiguity. (a/b as in a over b, idk how to do fractions on the phone if you know tell me!)
use the division sign when they should just use a fraction
There’s nothing wrong with using a Division sign, and anyone who thinks there is has forgotten the rules of Maths.
it is just visible no ambiguity
There’s NEVER any ambiguity. It’s what the rules of Maths are for!
a/b as in a over b
No, that’s a divided by b. (a/b) is a over b.
idk how to do fractions on the phone if you know tell me!
No need to, just use Brackets for Fractions.
how should it have been written?
Nope, you’re right. I just read the words and assumed it was one of the terrible ones.
This one is just…math.
This one is just…math
They ALL are
They’re definitely not
They’re definitely not
Says person who definitely can’t give a single example of any that aren’t 🙄
I don’t take homework from insufferably smug jerks on the Internet. Have a good one.
I don’t take homework from insufferably smug jerks on the Internet
Nor Maths teachers apparently, which would explain a lot. Hilarious that you say goodbye when you can’t back up what you said with a single example
it’s
a badly
written
math
problem
No it isn’t.
none of the people writing these better be teachers
I am, and it’s written correctly
You have to be more clear than this
It’s already 100% clear to everyone who remembers the rules of Maths
assumed the math problem was one of the ambiguous ones
NONE of them are ambiguous
Just patently untrue, but I’m no longer interested in this.
Just patently untrue,
Maths textbooks are patently untrue?? 😂 I guess you think Earth is flat too
Or it simply could be that I haven’t needed to concern myself with the order of operations more than a dozen times since high school. Even when working as a web coder it was so seldom necessary that I can’t recall a single example.
The US education system was still pretty decent when I was in middle and high school in the 1980s, so we definitely covered this in algebra.
I haven’t had to do this shit in 20 years since college. Literally nothing like this in my career path, I was shit at math in high school and college, so I didn’t even remember that there was a multiplication there since it isn’t explicit. Oh well.
that there was a multiplication there since it isn’t explicit
There isn’t a Multiplication there, only Addition and Brackets, and Subtraction inside Brackets. It’s never Multiplication unless there is a Multiplication sign.
Good for you. I don’t care.
PEMDAS bitches.
It’s interesting that you can somewhat tell where you are from based on this, I learned it as BODMAS
O - oxponent?
Orders.
Brackets, Orders (powers and roots), Division, Multiplication, Addition, and Subtraction
Division, Multiplication, Addition, and Subtraction
This is fucking so many people over… It should be limited - like Orders - to only Multiplication and Addition.
Because division is the same operation as multiplication, and subtraction is the same operation as addition, and they have the same “weight” in the order of operations (meaning, you do them left-to-right).
It should be limited - like Orders - to only Multiplication and Addition
Because you don’t want people to know when to do Division and Subtraction? 😂
Because division is the same operation as multiplication
No it isn’t, but they are both binary operators.
they have the same “weight” in the order of operations (meaning, you do them left-to-right)
And where are they going to do Division and Subtraction in the left to right if you’ve left them out? 🙄
Because you don’t want people to know when to do Division and Subtraction? 😂
Because division is multiplication, and subtraction is addition.
No it isn’t, but they are both binary operators.
2/2is the same as2*½2-2is the same as2+(-2)And where are they going to do Division and Subtraction in the left to right if you’ve left them out? 🙄
Well, as I already said multiple times: Division = Multiplication and Subtraction = Addition, therefore they would be doing them together, left to right. As in:
9-3+2would not confuse anyone who learned “Addition → Subtraction”, as it does right now.Because division is multiplication
No it isn’t.
and subtraction is addition
And you still have to do both
2/2 is the same as 2*½
They’re equal in value, they’re not the same
2-2 is the same as 2+(-2)
You got that the wrong way around. Brackets have only been used in Maths for a few centuries now
Well, as I already said multiple times: Division = Multiplication
And you were wrong every time you said it.
therefore they would be doing them together
Not if you left them out of the mnemonic and they didn’t know when to do them
O - oxponent?
To the Order of. 2² is 2 to the order of 2
Gonna keep shouting until it sticks;
Put a goddamn function sign for the parenthesis. Don’t assume everyone just knows what to do with the parenthesis alone. Fml it bugs me every time this meme gets posted.
What? A number next to parenthesis always means multiplication. Are people really not taught this anymore?
I live in Australia and don’t recall my school at all teaching me this in maths class
They taught us stuff like radius and area of a circle but not this
Edit:
Also counterpoint, people exist that live in other countries and every countries education system is different
I thought math was relatively universal. The US education system may be different, but I’m certain we’re not the only place that does it that way.
I thought math was relatively universal
It is
The US education system may be different
They have the same rules, but they don’t require Maths teachers to have a Maths qualification (in Australia you have to have a Masters), and they have been sliding in world rankings for more than a decade.
I live in Australia and don’t recall my school at all teaching me this in maths class
I’m in Australia, and I remember being taught it, and I teach it.
people exist that live in other countries and every countries education system is different
The rules are the same everywhere, only the notation varies (in Germany they use . for multiply and : for divide, and say “dot before slash”, slash being - and +).
What? A number next to parenthesis always means multiplication
No, it means distribution, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)
Are people really not taught this anymore?
They’re taught distribution yes. It’s only adults who’ve forgotten the rules of Maths who get these wrong
Why should anyone do that, an implied multiplication is the normal thing you learn in (I think?) somewhere between 5th to 7th grade. You only add an operator if it’s something else. It’s as basic as PEMDAS.
an implied multiplication
There’s no such thing. It’s a Term/Product.
is the normal thing you learn in (I think?) somewhere between 5th to 7th grade
Yes, you learn that it’s a Term/Product in Year 7
You only add an operator if it’s something else
You never add an operator, or you end up with wrong answers.
Aaah, got it. So if I see something like “5-(2+4)” I will just remove the subtraction operator and call it a day. Smartman on the internet said so. 🥴
Also casual reminder not everyone on the internet is a native english speaker. Everyone but you knew what was meant.
So if I see something like “5-(2+4)” I will just remove the subtraction operator and call it a day
Nope. Never said anything of the sort.
Smartman on the internet said so
No I didn’t, but nice try at a strawman 😂
not everyone on the internet is a native english speaker. Everyone but you knew what was meant.
There is no such thing as “implied multiplication” in any language. They are called Terms/Products in whatever language that book is using.
Counterpoint:
If kids where taught how to solve them properly we wouldn’t need to dumb down equasions.
If kids where taught how to solve them properly we wouldn’t need to dumb down equasions
They are taught how to solve them properly. It’s only adults who’ve forgotten the rules of Maths who get them wrong
Google implied multiplication.
Do you write 2x or do you write 2 • x?
That’s implied multiplication, if x= (a+b) then 2x becomes 2(a+b). Implied multiplication
Google implied multiplication
There’s no such thing. It’s a Term/Product. Google is a prime source of Maths disinformation (yes, they have been told it’s wrong, repeatedly, so it’s disinformation).
Do you write 2x or do you write 2 • x?
2a=(2xa) by definition, and 5(8-5)=(5x8-5x5).
That’s implied multiplication
No, that’s a Term/Product.
Implied multiplication
Terms/Products
In mathematics, a product is the result of multiplication,
I mean, I don’t like to argue about this, since I am not a native English speaker, but there is an implied multiplication there.
In mathematics, a product is the result of multiplication,
or Factoristion, ab+ac=a(b+c) <== a Product of a and (b+c)
I mean, I don’t like to argue about this
And yet here you are arguing with someone who is and is a Maths teacher
there is an implied multiplication there.
Nope! It’s a Term/Product. There’s no such thing as “implied multiplication” - you won’t find it in any Maths textbook
That time I didn’t use the term implied multiplication I merely said that the multiplication is implied
That time I didn’t use the term implied multiplication I merely said that the multiplication is implied
And there’s no such thing as either 🙄
Put a goddamn function sign for the parenthesis
Why?
Don’t assume everyone just knows what to do with the parenthesis alone
Well, everyone was taught what to do with it in high school.
Was anyone else ever taught it as BOMDAS as opposed to BODMAS?
It was BEDMAS for us, where the E was exponents or something.
Found the Canadian
Found the Canadian
Nope, it’s the same in Australia and the U.K.
Sorry, found the Commonwealther
found the Commonwealther
Or more precisely, the non-USer 😜
Okay, sorry, found the person from a sane country 😂
PEMDAS, is that the same as BOMDAS?
They’re all just different mnemonics for the same rules.
Why do people put bot pairs of multiplication and division, and addition and subtraction on the acronym?
Do you really follow that order with the associative operations?
Why do people put bot pairs of multiplication and division, and addition and subtraction on the acronym?
Because it’s intended to be used as a checklist
Do you really follow that order with the associative operations?
Yep
There’s no difference.
Addition and subtraction are the same operation, multiplication and division are the same operation.
So:
BO(MD)(AS) == BO(DM)(AS)
EDIT: in order to stop confusing people, it should just be: BOMA.
multiplication and division are the same operation
No they’re not, but they are both binary operators.
in order to stop confusing people, it should just be: BOMA.
Leaving out D and S confuses people about where to do them in the order. It’s intended to be used as a checklist
You already said that to me. I replied here.
You already said that to me
And you’re still ignoring it
What do you mean? I replied to it…
What do you mean? I replied to it…
Where you, yet again, ignored that I told you what you said is wrong, as per Maths textbooks
Yeah, I was taught BOMDAS here in Australia.
BODMAS (or BEDMAS), not BOMDAS. (unless they did that in some random state). I’m an Australian Maths teacher
Or it was some random teacher. Or it was more than fifteen years ago. I dunno, it was just what I was taught.
Or it was some random teacher
Yeah, maybe. My Year 7 students, who have come fresh to me from Year 6, use BEDMAS, and I teach BEDMAS for consistency (I also think it’s a better acronym anyway - think of a massive 4-poster bed to ingrain the idea of BED-MAS)…
Was anyone else ever taught it as BOMDAS as opposed to BODMAS?
I don’t think so, and I’ve seen Maths textbooks from all over the world. Only the U.S. wants to reverse the order of DM from everyone else’s acronym. 🙄
