A math problem for the wise
60
Replies


19 April, 2019, 2:01 AM UTC
old school Viking here says 16. Do well in KVKR my friends... AngelOfHell4U UTC +7:00
1


19 April, 2019, 7:44 AM UTC
The 2 is multiplying the brackets therefore do that first then the division i say 1
Drink and enjoy fellow vikings
UTC +10:00
1


19 April, 2019, 1:27 PM UTC
Laederon said:
That is wrong, you must deal with the parenthesis first. Your formula equivalent is incorrect, and inaccurate. The 2 must be interacted with the (1+3) before the division takes place. 2(1+3) : [2X4] i.e. 8 8 divided by 8 is 1 If the equation had been written 8 / 2 X (1+3), then your answer would have been correct, except for the fact you used (1+4) lol UTC +0:00
1


19 April, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC
spi said:
I am definitely a member of the old school lol. Mathematics are the basis of the exact sciences. Why has that convention been tinkered with? That makes early work meaningless, and now makes two different mathematical statements, which were clearly different, mean the same thing? I can't believe mathematicians would countenance what would appear to be an unnecessary, and totally confusing change to a well understood principle/instruction............... I will have to look into this for myself My computer seems to recognise the old convention quite happily, otherwise it would be throwing out strange answers that would have come to my attention many times over the last few decadesUTC +0:00
1


19 April, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC
The answer is 1. You only multiply 2 x 4, not the whole equation times 4.UTC +4:00
0


19 April, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC
Alice Vytsenets said:
priority to operations in brackets and multiplications first = (1+3) = (4) so 8 / 2 x (4) then = 2 x (4) = 8 so 8 / 8 résult 1 UTC +0:00
2


19 April, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC
You can't misuse a convention when you are explaining it to people. Your second mathematical statement is wrong, the answer to that line would indeed be 16. The parentheses denote a formula that must be calculated in isolation BEFORE it is used in the major equation. A number or symbol adjacent to the parenthesis, denotes that it part of the parenthesis equation, and requires you to multiply the contents by that number/symbol. Once you put the multiplication sign/symbol adjacent to the parenthesis, that number, in this case "2", ceases to be part of the isolated equation and becomes part of the major/general equation. This convention has been used by mathematicians for a great deal longer than we have been on the planet! Somebody in this thread suggested it has been changed. I do find it hard to believe anyone could do anything so crass, or indeed what the purpose of such a change would be. But I will certainly follow it upUTC +0:00
1


19 April, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC
1 solve inside the brackets first
UTC +5:00
0


19 April, 2019, 8:52 PM UTC
pippit said:
UTC +0:00
0


19 April, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC
Instead of math problems how about you put some good packs in the bank
UTC +7:00
3


19 April, 2019, 9:22 PM UTC
pipkin said:
I would look at it as 8÷2(1+3) then rewrite it as 8÷2×(1+3) then solve the brackets then work left to right. The only way to get 1 is if the equation was 8÷(2(1+3)). Come and join United ThoWo Forces in kingdom 68. There is no pressure to play every day or buy packs, or achieve minimum points in events.
UTC +1:00
1


19 April, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC
unless the qualifier is a square, power of, or square root  which also take preference
UTC +0:00
1


20 April, 2019, 8:20 AM UTC
There is a difference between arithmetic and mathematics, and like all things, our understanding and utilization thereof has matured and changed throughout time. Not to mention the different approaches taken through out the maturity of different cultures. The simple difference in BEMDAS AND PEMDAS is allusion enough to this, considering the relatively short frame of time in which they have changed from one to the other. Just take a look at the common core math kids bring home these days, if you need any convincing. Also, the 2 is outside of the parenthesis, denoting that it is to be multiplied by the sum therein, and is not in and of itself a part of the parenthesis, or it would be written 8/(2*3+1) or 8/(2(3+1)), the latter effectively being the same equation and equating to 1. This equation is a jest, and effectively brings out the mathematical equivalent of the grammar police; grammar police that don't realize their grammar is not universal and has not always been as it modernly is, and will not remain as it is (whether it has been as is for a moment or for millennia). Try to enjoy it for what it is and don't take it too seriously. People have probably been debating this equation longer than any of us have been alive, as well. Fun fact: Vikings never historically used written numbers. The pagan numerical rune system didn't come into play until well after the age of Vikings. UTC +7:00
1


20 April, 2019, 12:42 PM UTC
=1
UTC +0:00
0


20 April, 2019, 9:22 PM UTC
8:2(1+3)=8:2*4 now order of operations 8:2=4, 4*4= 16 pretty easy basic math UTC +0:00
1


21 April, 2019, 11:33 PM UTC
PRYFLLWYD said: Plarium's answer is probably 8.5 wait...that's the half that happens on the first click and the 2nd click is missed because the program stops everything while it provides a dialogue box to tell you what you just did....I call this "clickmania"! And the point five is the little extra Plarium just accepts as "Clickloss"... Live through the blood of your foes! Exalt in the lamentations of their women and children!
UTC 8:00
0


21 April, 2019, 11:40 PM UTC
Eliace said:
Actually.... 8/(2*3+1) is not the same as 8/(2(3+1))...and neither is the same as 8÷2(1+3) Live through the blood of your foes! Exalt in the lamentations of their women and children!
UTC 8:00
1


22 April, 2019, 12:16 PM UTC
The answer is inside you... but it's wrong
UTC +7:00
0


22 April, 2019, 2:22 PM UTC
It's 1! 8/2(1+3) =8/2(4) =8/8 =1UTC +7:00
0


23 April, 2019, 3:41 AM UTC
It is 1
UTC 4:00
0


