Can you solve 8÷2(2+2)?

Like @Cattleman84 said, there are mathematicians and physicists fighting over this, lol.

 

I found it!!! The rule that says the 2 outside the parentheses cannot be seperated from the parentheses...


Distributive property - Wikipedia

 

In C++, this code does not work. It returns the error: expression cannot be used as a function X = 8/2(2+2);



However, this works and returns 16:

 

It seems to me, ambiguous notation like 2(3+5) should be eliminated and required to be explicit at all times 2*(3+5), as every programming language I have checked, requires.

 

I looked but cannot find that wording in there. Nor do I see the relevance. How does it apply to this case?

 

Disagree, and I've only been skimming this thread because @Chinatown 's original post IS viral on the 'net. Old school people like me get 1 and millenials get 16. It's ONE ... or it was when "i" graduated~!

Martin, here's yours:
PPMDAS and L to R.
1 plus 7 is 8
2 x 10 is 20
8 x 20 is 160 which is still a product of the brackets, because we do those first, and there IS NO OTHER operational sign. (nor are there brackets around the 40 minus 30) ... SO...

160 X 40 is 6400
6400 minus 30 is 6370.

(ps: apologize, my plus and minus keys are broke on this laptop..)



Carry on....Tomcat Out....

 

SAME HERE~!!!! Thanks, man!

 

That 'explicit' asterisk is what's misleading y'all. IT'S NOT THERE in the expression presented by @Chinatown .... makes all the difference in the world. Maybe man is STILL smarter than computers after all?

ps: 'Man' wrote C plus plus (sorry my sign is broken) and should have accounted for that faux pax in programming.

 

I tried Excel, VB, Javascript, C, C++, Python and a TI-83 calculator. The only thing that would accept that expression as is, was the calculator. I suspect it added the multiplication symbol in code before evaluating the expression. All gave the answer as 16.

The fact remains, I went to college in my late 20's, early 30's... somewhere around 1995. All of the profs taught that 2(4) meant 2•4.

This is a matter of interpretation of implied multiplication. Just as there are different, sometimes overly complex ways to convey the same idea in language, the same follows for math.

If you mean...

8
------
2 • (2+2)

...then write it that way. There will be no confusion.

If you mean...

8
--- • (2+2)
2

...then write it that way, where it leaves no doubt as to your intentions.

 

I didn't write the equation; just telling you what the correct answer was when I graduated college in 1985. An implied asterisk or symbol for multiplication (x) truly changes things.

This debate may go on, I just know how I learned it and stick to my 'old' guns, LoL.