No, it becomes 8/(2x4). You can't remove brackets unless there's only 1 term left inside. Removing them prematurely flips the 4 from being in the denominator to being in the numerator, hence the wrong answer.

[–] Aermis 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No it doesn't? You treat parenthesis as it's own variable or equation. X/Y*Z. X is 8. Y is 2. And z is 2+2, or 4. Why did you add brackets to the 2? They were never there from the first equation. You can't just multiply Y to Z and ignore X.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You treat parenthesis as it’s own variable or equation

Exactly! 2(2+2) is a Term subject to The Distributive Law

X/Y*Z.

But it isn't. It's X/YZ.

Why did you add brackets to the 2?

I put back the brackets that you had prematurely removed when you wrote 8/2x4. You can't remove brackets unless there is only 1 term left inside. 2(4)=(2x4)=(8)=8. When you removed the brackets prematurely you flipped the 4 from being in the denominator to being in the numerator, hence the wrong answer.

They were never there from the first equation

Yes they were. The original equation is 8/2(2+2).

[–] Aermis 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Considering how conflicting and confident we are that we are both correct, clearly there's an issue with order of operations and how brackets work. Otherwise this wouldn't be such a debating issue. We were taught that 2(2) is the same as 2x2.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Otherwise this wouldn’t be such a debating issue

It's not in debate in any Maths textbooks, which is something none of the people claiming ambiguity ever reference.

We were taught that 2(2) is the same as 2x2

It's the same as (2x2), which is 1 term, not 2x2, which is 2 terms, which is why you can't prematurely remove the brackets. See worked example in this textbook...

[–] Aermis 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

OK, so in that picture you sent, the bottom part of it where it says you multiply the brackets by the number preceding it. Take that and put it to the right of the devision equation.

If you just put those numbers into brackets you'll also have to put 8/2 in brackets as well. Then it's (8/2)x(2+2). The answer is 16. Your way the answer is 1. Which is wrong.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Then it’s (8/2)x(2+2). The answer is 16

Yes, the answer to that is 16, which isn't the same as 8/2(2+2) (since you added a multiply to it and changed the expression).

you’ll also have to put 8/2 in brackets as well

No, 8/2 is two terms. I see you didn't read the link about Terms then. If you put 8/2 into brackets, then you just changed the expression, and thus also the answer. According to your logic - add more brackets to the left - 4+8/2(2+2)=(4+8/2)(2+2)=32

[–] Aermis 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My logic is to not add brackets randomly. The equation is 8/2x4. That's it. 2(2) is not (2x2). It's 2x2. The flaw in this equation is that 2(2) is not a proper syntactic equation and is correctly assumed as 2x(2). That's where you're getting confused. If you want to send links and resources here's a link to an EDU article on it, as well as teacher explaining it in a video. Hope this helps and settles this conversation.

https://www.sfu.ca/education/news-events/2022/september-2022/the-simple-reason-a-viral-math-equation-stumped-the-internet.html#:~:text=As%20such%2C%20for%20the%20record,debate%20in%20the%20first%20place

https://youtu.be/Cv4ANWJXnqI?si=yYFB4twOzWVOG-gE

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

My logic is to not add brackets randomly. The equation is 8/2x4

The equation is 8/(2x4) - you removed brackets prematurely, violating The Distributive Law

The flaw in this equation is that 2(2) is not a proper syntactic equation and is correctly assumed as 2x(2)

So I see you didn't read the link earlier about The Distributive Law. Try reading it this time around.

That’s where you’re getting confused

I'm not confused at all - I teach this subject and it's what's in every Year 7 Maths textbook. Again, try reading my links.

https://www.sfu.ca/education/news-events/2022/september-2022/the-simple-reason-a-viral-math-equation-stumped-the-internet.html#:~:text=As such%2C for the record,debate in the first place

8÷2(4) becomes 4(4)

No, it doesn't, because that's doing division when there's still unsolved brackets, which violates order of operations rules.

For us, the expression 8÷2(2+2) is syntactically wrong

Paraphrasing "We forgot about The Distributive Law".

in algebra we write 2x or 3a which means 2 × x or 3 × a

Paraphrasing "We also forgot about Terms". Literally no textbook does what they just said.

Hope this helps and settles this conversation

Random people ignoring what's in Maths textbooks in regards to a Maths equation would settle it? BWAHAHAHA!

Let me know when you read the links with actual Maths textbooks quoted. Bye now.