5-5/1+8*7/7*8-4+4(9^(18-5))=?

Options
13567

Replies

  • harvo
    harvo Posts: 4,676 Member
    Options
    It is eother your calorie intake or TDEE.....Right?
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    This is an awful thread. Why did I stay here? I'm outta here. You can have your hard math with your big brains and smart stuff.....(Charlie Kelly....Its always sunny...)

    I love that guy!! :happy:
  • MireyGal76
    MireyGal76 Posts: 7,334 Member
    Options
    if [5-5/1+8*7/7*8-4+4(9^(18-5))] was written as [5-5/1+(8*7/7*8)-4+4(9^(18-5))] you'd have been correct, the little string of multiplication and division in the middle got you is all :)

    yeah, I caught that afterwards.

    good thing I'm pretty.
  • dizzzy33
    dizzzy33 Posts: 31 Member
    Options
    is it weird that I really really like this stuff? lol

    I do too!! :blushing:
  • IronPhyllida
    IronPhyllida Posts: 533 Member
    Options
    I cant find the brackets on my calculator. Help.
  • Colliex3
    Colliex3 Posts: 328 Member
    Options
    I think this is what the teacher meant when they said "your gonna need to know this when your older"
  • whierd
    whierd Posts: 14,025 Member
    Options
    I love math.:heart:
  • jmc0806
    jmc0806 Posts: 1,444 Member
    Options
    1.016746331e13
  • vtmoon
    vtmoon Posts: 3,436 Member
    Options
    if [5-5/1+8*7/7*8-4+4(9^(18-5))] was written as [5-5/1+(8*7/7*8)-4+4(9^(18-5))] you'd have been correct, the little string of multiplication and division in the middle got you is all :)

    yeah, I caught that afterwards.

    good thing I'm pretty.

    :laugh: :flowerforyou:
  • whierd
    whierd Posts: 14,025 Member
    Options
    To everyone who did this longhand as opposed to a calculator. *salute*
  • sullus
    sullus Posts: 2,839 Member
    Options
    10,167,463,313,313
    10,167,463,313,376

    Are actually both correct.

    8*7/7*8 can be correctly interpreted as both 64 and 1. Just depends on if you consider it an in-line division symbol or 8*7 OVER 7*8
  • almart007
    almart007 Posts: 71 Member
    Options
    it equals x*y /z plus n
  • goalss4nika
    goalss4nika Posts: 529 Member
    Options
    idk-girl.gif


    TOO CUTE!! LOL
  • MireyGal76
    MireyGal76 Posts: 7,334 Member
    Options
    10,167,463,313,313
    10,167,463,313,376

    Are actually both correct.

    8*7/7*8 can be correctly interpreted as both 64 and 1. Just depends on if you consider it an in-line division symbol or 8*7 OVER 7*8

    actually, without brackets separating them, the order of ops is to perform all multiplications and divisions in order from left to right...

    ergo

    =8*7/7*8
    =56/7*8
    =8*8
    =64
  • whierd
    whierd Posts: 14,025 Member
    Options
    10,167,463,313,313
    10,167,463,313,376

    Are actually both correct.

    8*7/7*8 can be correctly interpreted as both 64 and 1. Just depends on if you consider it an in-line division symbol or 8*7 OVER 7*8

    I am guessing you are early 40s/late 30s? There was a brief time where the order of operations was taught improperly in many areas.

    The standing rule is PEDMAS Left to right, and the intent must be explicit brackets and parenthesis.
  • crista_b
    crista_b Posts: 1,192 Member
    Options
    10,167,463,313,313
    10,167,463,313,376

    Are actually both correct.

    8*7/7*8 can be correctly interpreted as both 64 and 1. Just depends on if you consider it an in-line division symbol or 8*7 OVER 7*8
    Point taken, however if you start looking at it that way, the original intent is open to discussion because you could say that the opening could be interpreted as 5-5 OVER 1, i.e., 0, which changes the whole thing. I think in this case, it's best to look at it in the most common view of 7/7 being it's own entity, otherwise there would be parentheses around the 8*7.

    *edit: what whierd said...
  • grider055
    grider055 Posts: 20
    Options
    1.21 Jigawatts.
  • skinnybearlyndsay
    skinnybearlyndsay Posts: 798 Member
    Options
    Please
    Excuse
    My
    Dear
    Aunt
    Sally

    Oh, the memories. :smile:
  • whierd
    whierd Posts: 14,025 Member
    Options
    10,167,463,313,313
    10,167,463,313,376

    Are actually both correct.

    8*7/7*8 can be correctly interpreted as both 64 and 1. Just depends on if you consider it an in-line division symbol or 8*7 OVER 7*8

    actually, without brackets separating them, the order of ops is to perform all multiplications and divisions in order from left to right...

    ergo

    =8*7/7*8
    =56/7*8
    =8*8
    =64

    This. But unfortunately some people were taught incorrectly at school on how to handle this sort of problem. Some were taught to treat it as

    8*7
    _____
    8*7
  • sullus
    sullus Posts: 2,839 Member
    Options
    10,167,463,313,313
    10,167,463,313,376

    Are actually both correct.

    8*7/7*8 can be correctly interpreted as both 64 and 1. Just depends on if you consider it an in-line division symbol or 8*7 OVER 7*8

    in this instance you go from left to right.(( 8*7) / 7)* 8

    if you have multiplication and division you go from left to right... same with addition and subtraction.

    Generally true, but the / symbol is mathematically ambiguous:
    Similarly, there can be ambiguity in the use of the slash ('/') symbol... For example, the manuscript submission instructions for the Physical Review journals state that multiplication is of higher precedence than division with a slash. (source "Physical Review Style and Notation Guide". American Physical Society. Section IV–E–2. Retrieved 5 August 2012.)

Categories