cupcakezealot, pink tax strikes again
Sylvartas, This is why I loved my Casio 2D. It could use actual fractions to avoid these kind of issues
cRazi_man, Ah damn it. It took me ages to find a calculator app that fits my needs… And now I find out it works like the one on the right.
MeanEYE, HP Prime, king of all. Or if you prefer open source NumWorks.
DrDominate, Hiper Calc is the calculator app that I use. It’s very good. When I ran this equation, it actually notified me how the operands should be grouped (weak or strong) and provided two answers. Honestly the whole issue can be avoided if you use more parentheses
Razzazzika, … the one on the right is correct… that’s a jank ass calculator on the left that doesn’t know how to do order of operations 8/2×(2+2) 8/2x4 4x4 16
force, (edited ) There isn’t a multiplication symbol though. By your logic something like
8÷2x
would mean(8÷2)*x
because order of operationsOr if you read
8÷2√x
as(8÷2)*√x
Just notate
8÷2(2+2)
as8÷2x; x=(2+2)
and you get it, you can substitute any complete expression with a variable in an equation and the logic stays the same.
Eezyville, You know sometimes both are correct.
Buffaloaf, Just write it out as a fraction and avoid all the confusion
hallettj, This is exactly why we have Reversed Polish Notation. When will people learn?
millie, A fifteen year old version of myself somewhere inside just screamed in iptscrae induced frustration.
groucho, RPN Gang unite!
GTG3000, I’m with the right answer here. / and * have same precedence and if you wanted to treat
2(2+2)
as a single unit, you should have written it like(2*(2+2))
.
sushibowl, It’s pretty common even in academic literature to treat implied multiplication as having higher precedence than explicit multiplication/division. Otherwise an expression like 1 / 2n would have to be interpreted as (1 / 2) * n rather than the more natural 1 / (2 * n).
A lot of this bullshit can be avoided with better notation systems, but calculators tend to be limited in what you can write, so meh. Unless you want to mislead people for the memes, just put parentheses around things.
GTG3000, That’s fair. Personally, I just have a grudge against math notation in general. Makes my programmer brain hurt when there’s no consistency and a lot of implicit rules.
Then again, I also like Lisp so I’m not exactly without sin.
AngryCommieKender, As a musician, can I just say: I would give my right nut for a musical notation system that is as clearly defined as mathematical notation. The worst part is that everyone that attempts to fix musical notation, just creates a new standard of notation.
GTG3000, I know what video you linked even without clicking lol. Yeah, I can agree there. Although my only experience with music was “try to learn guitar, get distracted because ADHD”.
AngryCommieKender, I started with piano, technically, but I was 3-4 years old, and don’t remember any of it. I can sit a piano and make it sound good, but I can’t play sheet music on it. I switched to violin in second grade, and then just learned how to play everything except for rhythm guitar, and piano. Chords mess with my fingers. Strangely enough my ADHD allowed me to super focus, but I never got the hang of sight reading, so I mostly play by ear, but no one can tell.
I can even play a didgeridoo, and that required me to learn circular breathing.
GTG3000, That’s impressive!
My ADHD just makes me lose time. Blink and the day is just gone.
Jarix, The rocksmith game might help you.
Even guitarhero/rockband will help you with using your fingers and will help when you want to try a real guitar. Muscle memory might not be great but for someone who is just doing it for fun it will be helpful getting your fretting and strumming coordination. And them being games might help fend off the adhd enough to keep you motivated to pick it up again after putting it down
GTG3000, I appreciate the sentiment, but I really don’t have time for another hobby.
I did accidentally become a DM for not one but two DnD groups recently.
Ultraviolet, The problem is whether or not that rule is taught depends on when and where you learned it. Schools only started teaching that rule relatively recently, and even then, not universally. Which of course makes for ideal engagement bait on your hellsite of choice.
linuxdweeb, Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally, she downloaded a shitty ad-infested calculator from the Google Play store.
Empathy, Unfortunately, it’s the best calculator I could find so far (for my own needs). I paid to remove the ads though, ads bother me way too much to use something infested with them.
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S, If you’re willing to pirate (or legally generate) a TI calculator ROM, then Graph 89 is probably what you’re looking for. This is what I use as my daily driver calculator with a TI-89 ROM.
MilliaStrange, https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/c3d6dbc8-75e9-4aea-8b02-d7db0c60570a.webp
Graph 89 with my TI-84 Plus Silver yields the bad answer
shea, wabbitemu!!! Its literally a ti emulator
brlemworld, The calculator is correct
Pharmacokinetics, People keep debating over this stuff. I have a simpler solution. Math is not real.
Goodvibes, The only real answer lmao. People really out here thinking the funny symbols on the paper follow absolute laws. Crazy.
AdrianTheFrog, My mom’s a mathematician, she got annoyed when I said that the order of operations is just arbitrary rules made up by people a couple thousand years ago
tamal3, It’s organized so that more powerful operations get precedence, which seems natural.
Set aside intentionally confusing expressions. The basic idea of the Order of Operations holds water even without ever formally learning the rules.
If an addition result comes first and gets exponentiated, the changes from the addition are exaggerated. It makes addition more powerful than it should be. The big stuff should happen first, then the more granular operations. Of course, there are specific cases where we need to reorder, or add clarity, which is why human decisions about groupings are at the top.
Mango, Yeah, but that’s why I like to buff my base attack before I invest in multipliers and armor penetration!
FlyingSquid, I’m with you. Has anyone ever actually seen a math? Can you buy a math at the math store? Are there bespoke math craftspeople?
No.
I rest my case.
tal, “Math” is a mass noun. You can’t have “a math”. It’s like blood or love. You can have more blood or less blood. There might be units in which blood is measured that you can have a certain number of (“a gallon of blood”), but you can’t have, unqualified, a blood or two bloods (well, not in that sense of the word, anyway).
FlyingSquid, You know this is 196, right?
pinkdrunkenelephants, You know we are adults who live in the real world, right?
FlyingSquid, I don’t think you understand the concept of shitposting.
eupraxia, Is math in the room with us right now?
sunbather, (edited ) 8÷2(2+2)=2(2+2)÷2(2+2)
alternatively if 8÷2(2+2)=16 that means 2(2+2)=8÷16 in other words 8=0,5 which it isnt
rasensprenger, (edited ) your first line is correct, but while it looks like 1 (and it might be under different conventions), evaluating according to standard rules (left to right if not disambiguated by pemdas) yields
2(2+2)/2(2+2) = 2(4)/2(4) = 24/24 = 8/24 = 44 = 16
Using implicit multiplication in quotients is weird and really shouldn’t happen, this would usually be written as 8/(2*(2+2)) or 8/2*(2+2) and both are much clearer
Your second argument only works if you treat 2(2+2) as a single “thing”, which it looks like, but isn’t, in this case
sunbather, (edited ) not much to refute in the argument of whether its 16 or 1 as its all a matter of convention in the end and ultimately the root of the argument is poor formatting of the expression, im used to implicit multiplication taking precedent and that 2(2+2)===2*(2+2) and that for my first argument having the same expression on 2 sides of a division sign automatically equals 1, but how come you find implicit multiplication in quotients weird? seeing as it happens literally all the time in equations, unless thats a difference in school systems or similar im unaware of
for fun also rewrote the expression into powers of 2 and indeed depending on how you go about implicit multiplication i end up with either 2⁰ or 2⁴, so for the sake of sanity i figure its best to just say x₁=1; x₂=16
rasensprenger, It’s weird because usually the people writing the expressions want to communicate clearly, and stuff like 1/2x is not immediately clear to everyone, so they write the 1/2 as a fraction.
The same expression on both sides of the division sign only reduce to one if they actually bind to the division sign, which is rarely an issue, but that is exactly the thing that is in question here. I think it’s clear that 1 + 1/1 + 1 is 3, not 1, even though 1+1 = 1+1.
But as you said, of course, the evaluation order is just convention, you can just as well write everything in en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation
Chakravanti, Let’s ask a neutron and find out which…
ICastFist, The problem is that there’s no “external” parentheses to really tell us which is right:
(8 / 2) * 4
or8 / (2 * 4)
The amount of comments here shows how much debate this “simple” thing generates
qarbone, When there are no parentheses, you process left to right on the same tier of operations. That’s how it’s always been processed.
EvokerKing, Afaik the order of operations doesn’t have distributive property in it. It would instead simply become multiplication and would go left to right and would therefore be 16.
Aermis, If you agree that parenthesis go first then the equation becomes 8/2x4. Then it’s simply left to right because multiplication does not take precedence over division. What’s the nuanced talk? That M comes before D in PEMDAS?
JamesDebenture007, Finally someone in here who knows math. Thank you.
ICastFist, My observation was mainly based on this other comment
programming.dev/comment/5414285
In this more sophisticated convention, which is often used in algebra, implicit multiplication is given higher priority than explicit multiplication or explicit division, in which those operations are written explicitly with symbols like x * / or ÷. Under this more sophisticated convention, the implicit multiplication in 2(2 + 2) is given higher priority than the explicit division in 8÷2(2 + 2). In other words, 2(2+2) should be evaluated first. Doing so yields 8÷2(2 + 2) = 8÷8 = 1. By the same rule, many commenters argued that the expression 8 ÷ 2(4) was not synonymous with 8÷2x4, because the parentheses demanded immediate resolution, thus giving 8÷8 = 1 again.
firewyre, Throw that ecal in the trash
dynamo, 16
MystikIncarnate, People in this thread need to watch this: youtu.be/lLCDca6dYpA
JeffKerman1999, I couldn’t listen, voice way too off-putting
Slovene, Really?! I find her voice incredibly sexy.
JeffKerman1999, Yeah to me it sounds ultra fake try hard
GrimChaos, And the much longer video by the same person:
Problem with PEMDAS: Why Calculators Disagree youtu.be/4x-BcYCiKCk
Th0rgue, This is the best video out there. A lot of people in north america have no idea.
Add comment