Can you solve 8÷2(2+2)?

Even Perl with it's "Do what it thinks I meant to do" chokes on it.

Code:

skellr@omen ~ $ echo $((8/2(2+2)))
bash: 8/2(2+2): syntax error in expression (error token is "(2+2)")

skellr@omen ~ $ echo $((8/2*(2+2)))
16

skellr@omen ~ $ python
Python 3.6.9 (default, Jul 15 2019, 22:55:00)
[GCC 9.1.0] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.

>>> print(8/2(2+2))
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: 'int' object is not callable

>>> print(8/2*(2+2))
16.0
>>>

skellr@omen ~ $ perl -e 'print 8/2(2+2) . "\n"'
syntax error at -e line 1, near "2("
Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors.

skellr@omen ~ $ perl -e 'print 8/2*(2+2) . "\n"'
16

 

Yes this is exactly the point...

8÷2(2+2)=

Is not the same as

8÷2×(2+2)=


The first is solved as
8÷((2×2)+(2×2))=

8÷8=1


The second is solved as

8÷2×(4)=

8÷2=4

4×4=16

If there is no sign between a variable and the parentheses then the distributive property applies and is considered part of the "Parentheses" step in the order of operations.

 

AMEN to that.. just like the one Martin posted. NOT the same. The presence of parentheses is NOT an implied symbol for multiplication .. it IS multiplication. ORDER. YESSIR~!!!

THANK YOU.

And you're half my age; I'm happy now, haha!

 

Look at it another way

The original equation is

8÷2(2+2)=

If the answer is 16... Or 1, it can be checked by removing a known variable and replacing it with an unknown like thus

8÷x(2+2)=16

Or

8÷x(2+2)=1

We already know that x=2 from the original equation... But only one of the above equations will solve as x=2


Let's work them out

8÷x(2+2)=16

8÷(2x+2x)=16... Distributive Property used to get (2x+2x)

8÷4x=16

8=16×4x

8÷16=4x

2÷4=x

.5=x

This does not work out to the x=2 that we know it should be from the original equation. Therefor 16 is not the correct answer to the original equation.

Lets try the same thing if we use 1 as the answer to the original equatio.

8÷x(2+2)=1

8÷(2x+2x)=1... Distributive Property used to get (2x+2x)

8÷4x=1

8=1×4x

8=4x

2=x


As you can see using 1 as the answer to the original equation we can then solve x=2... Which we know is correct because x in the original equation was indeed a 2. Therefor 1 is the correct answer to the original equation.


The answer to op is 1

 

Dang you're good. I remember 'breaking it down' like that for MY kids when they were in school.

Thinking 'common core' has 'cored' some brain cells these days. EXCELLENT.

 

Yes common core was the worst thing to ever come to mathematics education.

Math is kinda my thing... Lol

 

I see that.. and considering you're kinda 'younger' it's amazing that you break it down like that. Kids today barely learn associative and distributive properties, if at all. Thinking you, China, and Dave are the only ones that get this, besides me.

The 'barcode guys' (LiL too many times and skellr) are trying to replicate with code....and it's not possible. Sad but true.

GOOD for you, man.

 

Speaking of common core, anyone remember when they tried to teach kids to read using I.T.A.? Somewhere around the early 70's I think.

My younger brother had to learn it and when he showed it to me, I was like, "What the hell kind of alien #### is that?"

 

I remember hearing about that from my older brother. Anymore when I hear people talk about IFTA .. that phrase comes back to me. Never had a clue what it meant.

Wife took son OUT of school and home schooled him when 'common core' kicked in' he'd come home with homework and had to group and color circles and squares to do his MATH homework. Wife tried to 'learn' it to help him and finally said 'hellnawh....' So there went that.

Daughter graduated before it came into play, and she's scholarship bound, undecided. Thank Gawd, LoL.