Can you solve 8÷2(2+2)?

8÷2(2+2)=y


8
--------- = y
2(2+2)



8 = (2(2+2))y



8 = 8y

All of the above equations are the exact same... Therefore...

y = 1

Put 1 in for y in any of these equations and they will ALWAYS workout correctly.

And I've got more...

 

I’ll text over to my brother in the morning. Be interesting to see the answer.

 

Here is the proof.

 

The answer is 16.
Done!

 

8÷2(2+2)=y


8
--------- = y
2(2+2)



8 = (2(2+2))y



8 = 8y

All of the above equations are the exact same... Therefore...

y = 1

Put 1 in for y in any of these equations and they will ALWAYS workout correctly.

And I've got more...


8÷((2×2)+(2×2)) = y



8
---------------------- = y
((2×2)+(2×2))


8 = ((2×2)+(2×2))y


8÷2(4) = y


8
------- = y
2(4)


8 = (2(4))y

 

Try to put 16 into any of the equations I presented in my previous posts... It doesnt compute for ALL of them... But use 1 and it always works out. Thats the beauty of math... when you have it correct it will ALWAYS work out no matter how the equation is written.

All the equations I presented are the same as the equation from the op... Just written in different formats... And EVERY single one works out correctly when you use 1 for the unknown y.

 

I rest my case.

 

More proof... Let's remove a 2 and replace it as unknown z. Then replace the unknown y with 1


8÷z(2+2)=1


8
--------- = 1
z(2+2)



8 = (z(2+2))1



8 = 8(1)



8÷(2z+2z) = 1



8
---------------------- = 1
(2z+2z)


8 = (2z+2z)1


8÷4z = 1


8
------- = 1
4z


8 = 1(4z)


This is another way of checking the math... You can work it to solve for z... If it ALWAYS works out to be the z=2 we know it was from the original equation, then the answer of y=1 is correct.


Now lets try the same thing using 16 for y...



8÷z(2+2)=16


8
--------- = 16
z(2+2)



8 = (z(2+2))16



8 = 8(16)



8÷(2z+2z) = 16



8
---------------------- = 16
(2z+2z)


8 = (2z+2z)16


8÷4z = 16


8
------- = 16
4z


8 = 16(4z)


If you try to solve for z in these equations it does not give us the z=2 that we know it should be from the original equation.

 

I dont know how many more ways to prove this one needs to see to believe... But the math does not lie... I have solved it using basic math, 2 different ways... I have solved it with algebra showing several formats... I then used algebra to check that a known variable could be found by inputting 1 for the the unknown variable... Then I even used algebra to show that the same known variable could NOT be found by inputting 16 for the unknown variable.


Alas I give up trying to prove my answer... But I will stand by it until the day I die... Math does not lie.

 

In further research, the confusion comes from the implied multiplication 2(4) and can cause confusion in the order of operations depending on how it is interpreted.

If it is interpreted as 8 divided by 8, then the answer is 1. If it is interpreted as 8 divided by 2 times 4, then the answer is 16. It affects how you think about the order of operations.

If you take the calculation literally and enter it into a TI-85, it comes up with 16.

If you take it as an algebraic equation, the order of operations are affected and the answer is 1, as below.