You must log in or register to comment.
I feel like I am getting trolled
Isn’t 17 the actual right answer?
Exactly
So it’s just an unfunny meme?
I think it’s meant to play with your expectations. Normally someone’s take being posted is to show them being confidently stupid, otherwise it isn’t as interesting and doesn’t go viral.However, because we’re primed to view it from that lens, we feel crazy to think we’re doing the math correctly and getting the “wrong answer” from what we assume is the “confident dipshit”.
There’s layers beyond the superficial.
I fell for it. It’s crazy to think how heavily I’ve been trained to believe everything I see is wrong in the most embarrassing and laughable way possible. That’s pretty depressing if you think about it.
It’s engagement bait.
Not even a meme.
Some people insist there’s no “correct” order for the basic arithmetic operations. And worse, some people insist the correct order is parenthesis first, then left to right.
Both of those sets of people are wrong.
There is no answer. Because there is no question.
Because there is no question
So Maths test says “2+3 ____”, and you write “that’s not a question” on the blank line?? 😂
Presuming PEMDAS is our order of operations and the 5 next to the parentheses indicates multiplication…
2+5(8-5) -> 2+5(3) -> 2+15=17
Other than adding a multiplication indicator next to the left parentheses for clarification (I believe it’s * for programming and text chat purposes, a miniature “x” or dot for pen and paper/traditional calculators), this seems fine, yeah.
…I worry about how many people may not understand how to solve equations like these.
That’s not even an equation, just basic arithmetic
Fair enough, I’ve heard “math problem” and “math equation” used interchangeably.
Also you would be surprised how many people do not know basic algebra, at least in the US rofl
You. You are one of them bc you do not know what an equation is.
There is no algebra here. This is arithmetic.
When I made my example, I used an algebraic expression, but yeah, the original question was arithmetic, sorry. Not very good at explaining things XD
the original question was arithmetic
No, it’s actually Algebra. There is no a(b+c) in Arithmetic
You are one of them bc you do not know what an equation is.
You are one of the people who doesn’t know what a(b+c) is
There is no algebra here
Yes there is, 5(8-5).
This is arithmetic
There’s no a(b+c) in Arithmetic
Technically not algebra, right? Algebra is where you move things around and solve for variables, and that kind of thing. This is just arithmetic.
Technically not algebra, right?
No, it actually is Algebra. The Distributive Law isn’t taught to students until they start on Algebra.
This is just arithmetic
There’s no a(b+c) in Arithmetic.
I don’t think you’re right. The wiki page literally uses a similar equation as an example of “elementary arithmetic.” It also uses a similar one, but with variables, as an example in “elementary algebra.” That implies that yes, this is arithmetic, and the introduction of variables is what makes it algebra.
It doesn’t matter what course finally teaches it to you. That could be just out of convenience, not by definition part of that domain. It’s been ages since I took it, though I could swear I learned this in pre-algebra (meaning before algebra), or earlier. I could be wrong on this though. Again, it’s been a very long time.
I don’t think you’re right
You don’t think Maths textbooks are right??
The wiki page
is full of disinformation. Note that they literally never cite any Maths textbooks
as an example of “elementary arithmetic.”
And whichever Joe Blow My Next Door Neighbour wrote that is wrong
as an example in “elementary algebra.”
Algebra isn’t taught until high school
That implies that yes, this is arithmetic,
No, anything with a(b+c) is Algebra, taught in Year 7
the introduction of variables is what makes it algebra
and the rules of Algebra, which includes a(b+c)=(ab+ac). There is no such rule in Arithmetic.
It doesn’t matter what course finally teaches it to you
It does if you’re going to argue over whether it’s Arithmetic or Algebra.
not by definition part of that domain
The Distributive Law is 100% part of Algebra. It’s one of the very first things taught (right after pronumerals and substitution).
It’s been ages since I took it
I teach it. We teach it to Year 7, at the start of Algebra
You’re very rude. Also, Ill informed, and you think you’re smarter than you are. For example, this:
as an example in “elementary algebra.”
Algebra isn’t taught until high school
Elementary doesn’t mean elementary school. Do you think elementary particles are the ones they teach you in elementary school? Lol. Elementary means fundamental or basic.
The clouds could part, revealing an unmistakable divine presence, where a herald of angels trumpet, and the creator of the universe tells this guy he’s being a hypocritical crank, and he’d bicker until god himself said “Stuff this” and moved on.
You’re very rude
What do you expect to happen when you call a Maths teacher wrong about Maths?
Ill informed
Maths teachers are ill informed about Maths?? 😂
Elementary means fundamental or basic
Which therefore contradicts your argument about it being part of Arithmetic, which is taught in elementary school, Algebra isn’t
That’s not even an equation, just basic arithmetic
Basic Algebra actually. Students aren’t taught the Distributive Law until they start on Algebra
Algebra has horrible syntax. Way too much implications.
Implications or assignment? They didn’t specify notation.
Implications or assignment?
Umm, neither?? 😂
They didn’t specify notation
a(b+c)=(ab+ac) is taught in Algebra, The Distributive Law, it can’t mean anything else - it’s the reverse operation to Factorising ab+ac=a(b+c).
I know. I was clowning on the dude mad about the arrows by offering one of numerous other meanings outside Boolean Algebra that sounded even more absurd in that context.
I know. I was clowning
Ok, fair enough. Some people seriously believe completely wrong things. A smiley goes a long way to showing intent
Multiplication sign is not required in situations like this. Same with unknowns - you don’t have to write
2*x, you just write2x.While I never failed a math class, I also never went past high school. When would your presumptions NOT be true?
Some forms of programming syntax, although there are the fringe cases where an equation (or function in programming) is represented by a symbol in conjunction with a parentheses input.
For example:
y(x) = 2*x+3
5+y(1) = 10, as 1 is substituted in for x in the prior equation.
Wouldn’t we just assume function expressions are always “in parenthesis”? Then it’s just a substitution and no rules were changed.
Wouldn’t we just assume function expressions are always “in parenthesis”?
No, because factorised Terms also are, ab+ac=a(b+c).
But factorised terms are multiplications, so they’re still following the same rules: a(b+c) = a*(b+c)
Example: 2(3+5)=16, and also 2*3+2*5=16
But factorised terms are multiplications,
No, they’re Distribution done in the Brackets step, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), now solve (ab+ac)
a(b+c) = a*(b+c)
Nope! a(b+c)=(ab+ac). 1/a(b+c)=1/(ab+ac), but 1/ax(b+c)=(b+c)/a.
23+25=16
(2x3+2x5) actually, or you’ll get the wrong answer when it follows a Division sign. See previous point
1/a(b+c)=1/(ab+ac)
Nope, that’s wrong. See https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=10%2F2(2%2B3) for reference.
And in some languages a number can be used as a name of a variable or a function, so it can be anything really
And in some languages a number can be used as a name of a variable or a function
Not in Maths it can’t
so it can be anything really
No, it can only be a Factorised Term, ab+ac=a(b+c). You also can’t call a function by any letter that you’ve used as a pronumeral
I prefer BM-DAS, no one’s out here doing exponents, and no one calls brackets “parentheses”…
The way I was taught growing up, brackets are [these]. Parenthesis are (these).
Yes, technically the latter are also brackets. But they can also be called parenthesis, whereas the former is exclusively a bracket. So we were taught to call them separate words to differentiate while doing equations.
I’m a theoretical physics grad student and a night school maths teacher, I have never heard this distinction. People in academia around me call them round and square brackets.
It’s a US vs UK (and probably others) distinction. The ( ) are almost never called brackets in the US, unless it’s a regional thing I’m not aware of. Also the [ ] didn’t get used in any math classes I was in the US up through calculus except for matrices.
Interesting! Nobody at my institute is a native English speaker. They’re from several European and some Asian and south American countries.
The way I was taught growing up, brackets are [these]. Parenthesis are (these)
They’re all brackets. Parentheses is actually the part inside the ().
the 5 next to the parentheses indicates multiplication
No, it indicates Distribution, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), 5(8-5)=(5x8+5x5).
My education system didn’t fail me, I failed it.
Let’s not do engagement bait here 😭
5 isn’t a valid function name, is obviously the right answer.
It could be a Church Numeral
How can you be sure it’s not defined when we only see one line?
They didn’t say it’s not defined, they said it’s not a valid name. Most languages don’t allow function names to start with a number, so 5 literally cannot be a function if that’s the case.
But that’s assuming this isn’t some really obscure language.
so 5 literally cannot be a function if that’s the case
No, but it can be and is a coefficient of the Term 5(8-5)
Depends on the language.
Depends on the language
No it doesn’t
Yes it does.
Yes it does
Says person who can’t cite a single example of it depending on the language 🙄
5 isn’t a valid function name, is obviously the right answer.
5 is a coefficient of the Term 5(8-5) is the correct answer
PEMDAS bitches.
It’s interesting that you can somewhat tell where you are from based on this, I learned it as BODMAS
O - oxponent?
O - oxponent?
To the Order of. 2² is 2 to the order of 2
Orders.
Brackets, Orders (powers and roots), Division, Multiplication, Addition, and Subtraction
Division, Multiplication, Addition, and Subtraction
This is fucking so many people over… It should be limited - like Orders - to only Multiplication and Addition.
Because division is the same operation as multiplication, and subtraction is the same operation as addition, and they have the same “weight” in the order of operations (meaning, you do them left-to-right).
Another commenter mentioned something similar, how they’re interchangeable, but I’m not sure why you say it’s fucking people over.
Because the people who learn “DM” or “MD” then spend hours online arguing that you must do one before the other.
People do be arguing, lol
It should be limited - like Orders - to only Multiplication and Addition
Because you don’t want people to know when to do Division and Subtraction? 😂
Because division is the same operation as multiplication
No it isn’t, but they are both binary operators.
they have the same “weight” in the order of operations (meaning, you do them left-to-right)
And where are they going to do Division and Subtraction in the left to right if you’ve left them out? 🙄
Because you don’t want people to know when to do Division and Subtraction? 😂
Because division is multiplication, and subtraction is addition.
No it isn’t, but they are both binary operators.
2/2is the same as2*½2-2is the same as2+(-2)And where are they going to do Division and Subtraction in the left to right if you’ve left them out? 🙄
Well, as I already said multiple times: Division = Multiplication and Subtraction = Addition, therefore they would be doing them together, left to right. As in:
9-3+2would not confuse anyone who learned “Addition → Subtraction”, as it does right now.Because division is multiplication
No it isn’t.
and subtraction is addition
And you still have to do both
2/2 is the same as 2*½
They’re equal in value, they’re not the same
2-2 is the same as 2+(-2)
You got that the wrong way around. Brackets have only been used in Maths for a few centuries now
Well, as I already said multiple times: Division = Multiplication
And you were wrong every time you said it.
therefore they would be doing them together
Not if you left them out of the mnemonic and they didn’t know when to do them
Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally… bitches.
I never ran into PEMDAS while growing up, in Sweden I’ve always been taught of it as the following order of operations:
- P
- E & Roots
- M & D
- A & S
e: Wanted to see if this is a thing in English.
Damn, its always the simple math problem post with like, almost 700 comments lmao
Because of one troll harassing people to insist 2(8)2 is 256 and RPN has invisible brackets.
I’m sorry but isn’t this elementary school math?
In the rest of the world: yes.
In the US: I highly doubt it.
This is just basic math, if you can’t figure this out you’re probably 8 years old.
Probably some backwards-ass red state / red town shenanigans.
Math was always taught in my Blue cities. The atrocities of the US’s history was never left out of the curriculum.
We need to actually finish doing reconstruction and fix this country.
Fix? It’s a duster fire. It may be hard to deal with, but a total collapse and completely rebuilding it feels like the better solution to the problem (so not based on a constitution made in completely different times with muskets and without internet etc).
So you were taught math. What languages did you learn besides English? What history did you learn, just US or also of other countries and the rest of the world? And talking about the rest of the world, how much did you learn about that? Countries, cultures, cities, geographic features like mountains, seas, etc. and how they were formed? What religions were taught about? What about history of music and art?
In all fairness, I grew up in a small town in a very red state, but the education system there proved better than larger, more progressive parts of the state. The education I received was likely an outlier and not representative of the norm, but it did teach me that educators in an area do not necessarily mirror the rest of the population.
I think that ordering of calculation was taught around 5th grade back in my day (11yo)
Yeah, I’d say the same for central europe. 5th and 6th grade are when they throw a lot of math expression rules at you.
Thanks for confirming. I probably sounded too condescending but I wasn’t sure if it was a false memory.
I loved math as a kid though, so I ran through the curriculum as fast as I could to get to the good stuff. I think having older siblings helped - it gave me a preview of more interesting material.
Definitely taught in parts of the US, it’s a regional thing though
Definitely taught in parts of the US, it’s a regional thing though
It’s a how good is your Maths teacher (who isn’t required to have any Maths qualifications) question. The rules are the same everywhere.
In the US: I highly doubt it
The issue in the U.S. isn’t Maths textbooks (same rules as everywhere else), it’s poor teaching. U.S. Maths teachers aren’t required to have any Maths qualifications, and they’ve been sliding in world rankings for more than a decade now.
Yeah, but even worse, you’re just talking about schools. You forgot about all the kids being home schooled, taught the earth is flat and an imaginary friend created everything in 7 days. Taught by parents who lack proper education themselves.
Also, it’s kinda obvious the rules of math aren’t different in the US. Even when they use an idiotic measuring system. If people don’t know how to use math properly, the issue clearly is the education and not math itself.
Yeah, but even worse, you’re just talking about schools
I’m talking about anyone at all in the U.S. is allowed to teach Maths without any Maths qualifications
You forgot about all the kids being home schooled
That happens in other countries too, and yet it’s the U.S. which has been sliding down the world rankings for more than a decade, the country that doesn’t require Maths teachers to have Maths qualifications.
Also, it’s kinda obvious the rules of math aren’t different in the US
That’s right, as proven by U.S. Maths textbooks
If people don’t know how to use math properly, the issue clearly is the education and not math itself
Partly right. there’s also people who just outright forgot the rules.
Partly right. there’s also people who just outright forgot the rules.
It doesn’t really matter, who needs math anyway? If the president can claim medicine prices will go down 1200%…
who needs math anyway?
Lots of people
If the president can claim medicine prices will go down 1200%
Did you miss seeing all the people who know Maths ridiculing him?
I was joking. I was being sarcastic. I was making fun of the US president because he doesn’t understand the concept op percentages. You know, something you learn during basic math in primary school. All while being the freaking president. A potato as a president is tearing down the already fucked up education system, replacing it with his propaganda.
The president’s net approval rating is -16%, up 2.3 points since last week. 41% approve, 57% disapprove, 4% not sure.
Source: The economist
This means only 57% consists of people who knew he was criminal pedophile piece of shit, or recently realized because they trusted his lies over facts before. That also means the rest (except the 1% of people who hold all the wealth and actually love him for getting even more rich at the cost of everyone else, thanks to him) are too dumb to understand what 2+2 is. Also the journalist from The Economist, even though the paper is British, because when you add up those percentages you get a total of a 102%.
By now the movie Idiocracy is no longer a comedy, it’s a prediction of the very near future of the US. An optimistic one, because in the movie they didn’t kill themselves or blew up the entire world.
It became a meme a few years ago, people would post problems like this and argue about whose was right, as if there were no objective truth. It hurt to watch.
Arguably, there is no objective truth, since the symbols and rules of mathematics are assigned arbitrarily, and are basically a social contract, just like language!
…Wait, that means there’s no objective meaning of “objective”, crap
Arguably, there is no objective truth
Yes there is, just look in Maths textbooks
since the symbols and rules of mathematics are assigned arbitrarily
The signs are, the rules aren’t.
are basically a social contract, just like language!
Nope and nope. It’s a tool for calculating things, nothing like a language at all.
no objective meaning of “objective”
There is, in a dictionary, just like the rules of Maths are in Maths textbooks
ya this one is super unambiguously PEMDAS, the one that has more of an argument is the one with the division of whether
a/b(c)isa / (b * c)or(a / b) * cya this one is super unambiguously PEMDAS
Spoiler alert: they all are
the one that has more of an argument is the one with the division of whether a/b© is a / (b * c) or (a / b) * c
No it doesn’t, The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), thus a/b©=a/(bxc).
I’m sorry but isn’t this elementary school math?
No, high school. The Distributive Law isn’t taught until Year 7
Pemdas, parenthesis first, for a total of 3. Then multiplication, 15, then addition. 17. What’s hard about this?
you go the other direction below the equator
What’s hard about it is people are fucking stupid.
No, it’s written poorly to drive engagement. People read left to right and try to do math that way too, but if you want to be mean to people who don’t remember things they learned in elementary school then never applied in real life you write it like OP.
(8-5)5+2
Far easier for most people, but then you don’t get the arguments…
I studied physics a bit and order of operations was always clear. Not sure why people are down voting this.
No, it’s written poorly
No it isn’t
drive engagement
The engagement comes from people not remembering the rules of Maths
(8-5)5
That’s an invalid syntax. it’s 5(8-5) or 5x(8-5), nothing else. Why is it invalid? Imagine (8-5)-5 - am I multiplying what’s in the brackets by -5 (which gives -15), or subtracting 5 after doing the brackets (which gives -2)? Invalid syntax
Far easier for most people
Nope, it’s wrong for everyone, due to being an invalid syntax.
Yes, thank you! Sure, it’d be great if people remembered arithmetic rules, but just write it better and it won’t matter.
just write it better
It’s written like that in Maths textbooks. i.e. there’s nothing wrong with it.
It’s written the same way literally thousands of math problems in thousands of textbooks have written the same type of math problem for the last 100 years. OP did not write it that way to be “mean.” He wrote it that way because it’s a legit way to write it.
The operational order is fucked, the way I rewrote is more readable, even if you remember the order. The only reason you’d write the equation like that is to be mean, there’s no reason to write it like that unless you’re trying to trip people up.
You got it wrong on your first try, didn’t you? Lol, it’s not “mean” to write a math problem. The whole point of memorizing the order of operations is so that you can solve it no matter what order the equation is written in. No one wrote this problem on purpose just to make you fail to understand it, that’s dumb.
This was literally written for twitter content…
I just fail to see how you come to the conclusion that it was written in a “mean” way. It’s math, there is no “nice” way to write an equation.
The operational order is fucked
No it isn’t.
the way I rewrote is
Wrong.
The only reason you’d write the equation like that is
Because it’s written like that in Maths textbooks
there’s no reason to write it like that unless you’re
Obeying the rules of Maths, as found in Maths textbooks
I fucking suck at math and totally just re-proved it to myself with this problem lmao.
It didn’t make sense to me to multiply the 3 & the 5 with zero consideration for the “2”. I have ALWAYS struggled with the steps to solve these types of equations.
So the answer I got was 21. Some of us are just bad with numbers, I s’pose.
If you don’t remember pemdas, you can use the longer P.lease E.xcuse M.y D.ear A.unt S.ally.
It didn’t make sense to me to multiply the 3 & the 5 with zero consideration for the “2”
That’s what the order of operations rules say to do. 2 doesn’t come into it until you get down to the Addition step.
Pemdas, parenthesis first, for a total of 3
Nope, a total of 15.
Then multiplication
There isn’t any Multiplication, only Addition and Brackets (and Subtraction inside Brackets).
And what do you do with the number inside the when you want to get rid of it?
And what do you do with the number inside the when you want to get rid of it?
You literally must distribute the coefficient before you can do anything with what is inside to remove Brackets, as per The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), now you can work on getting rid of what is inside.
And what do you do with and and the b and then the a and the c? If you want to simplify the equation?
And what do you do with and and the b and then the a and the c? If you want to simplify the equation?
Add them, obviously 🙄
Guess I’ve been trolled.
And what do you do with and and the b and then the a and the c?
BTW, there’s no “the a and the b” and “the a and the c”, there’s ab and ac, which need to be added. If a=2, b=3, and c=4, we have 2(3+4)=(6+8)=14
You have to subtract the numbers with the most flat sides first and divide by the number of pennies in your sock drawer.
Let’s keep it easy. There’s 2 + all the other number who results in 15 = 17.
Someone may mistake by doing 2+5 then the rest of the operation, resulting in 21. But is wrong.
Could also fuck up and get 51
2 5 8 5 - × + for you RPN fans =)
Hrmm.
I read that as resulting in 21.
My education system did fail me.
I plugged that into ghci as 2+5*(8-5), and it says 17.
:(
I did (2+5)*(8-5).
Doh.
[Edit: (Double doh! Mistyped that here as 5+2. XD)]
I did (2+5)*(8-5).
The problem is you can’t just add parenthesis willy nilly, that breaks the whole equation!
Well, it used to be a free country until common core and now this nonsense is the result. Numbers and punctuation mixed together. Pure chaos.
You do parenthesis first and then multiplications and then sums, you did parenthesis, then sums, then multiplications, wich is wrong.
You don’t necessarily have to do parentheses first. What matters is that the things inside the parentheses are a group that you can’t break apart. If you have
10÷2+3-2*(2+1)you can do the division first5+3-2*(2+1)then the addition outside the parentheses8-2*(2+1)It’s just that before you do the multiplication of the term outside the parentheses, you have to handle the parentheses group, so you get8-2*3->8-6->2You don’t necessarily have to do parentheses first
Yes, you do necessarily have to do it first
What matters is that the things inside the parentheses are a group that you can’t break apart
And outside, and you must do them first. You haven’t finished Brackets until you have 5(8-5)=15.
10÷2+3-2*(2+1) you can do the division first
only because you’ve separated that part with a plus sign
then multiplications
There aren’t any, only Addition and Brackets (and Subtraction inside Brackets)
Uh huh.
are you THAT lazy
Fuck everyone else I thought this was funny
So you’re the guy that asked chat GPT if you could enter Chile without a passport, said yes, come to Chile and had to go back because you actually needed a passport huh?.
It surprises me the amount of people who just “outsource” their intelligence to a fking chatbot and then proceed their way in life taking moronic decisions all over, a reminder AI companies depend on people being too lazy to think to be able to sell their products.
Coal rolling, but for IT-literate.
Funny, tell that to the billionaires who have a private jet.
I am. I’m also telling you.
OMG! That’s the first time I’ve actually seen AI get order of operations right! 😂
Any PEMDAS enjoyers in chat?
I assume p is for “parentheses”, because where I grew up it was BEDMAS, for brackets.
BODMAS or BOMDAS in Australia since we call ordinals ordinals
Brackets have pretty much always been needed to disambiguate precedence between addition and subtraction (which is really all addition) and between multiplication and division
Brackets have pretty much always been needed
No they aren’t. Addition and Subtraction in any order, Multiplication and Division in any order. Only needs brackets if the order matters
