I agree it’s pedantic AF, but you shouldn’t soft-pedal a ‘both sides have their point’ argument because the ‘controversy’ is driven exclusively by ignorance. Professionals and higher ed consistently prescribe how to handle this. We really need to be on the same pg on this stuff.
If you thought 8 ÷ 2(2+2) = ? was stupid and pointless, so did a lot of mathematicians.https://nyti.ms/2YKDk9f
-
-
-
If you read my essay, it’s exactly the professionals and higher ed who are exasperated by people slavishly using PEMDAS without understanding why or if it makes sense.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's not a question for mathematicians: there is no math in it, only elementary-school level arithmetics. The answer is 16. If it were 8÷(2(2+2)) then the answer would be 1. Yes, it's that simple.
-
If there were a rule that 2(4) had priority in the order of operations, would it make the calculation more interesting? No. No one writes the equation in this form, because it’s ambiguous. Write as a fraction, and there’s no ambiguity, and that’s a better option in every way.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This must be a Canadian/metric thing, but it is not written wrong. The answer is 16. Division, and left to right.
-
Anyone who wants a detailed discussion of 1 vs 16, Steven Strogatz discusses it here:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/science/math-equation-pemdas-bodmas.html …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The answer is 42.
-
Of course.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So who read the article? How many triangles? I need to know if I am right.
-
Tell me your answer and how you figured it out and I’ll tell you if you’re right.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.