196

Casio does a wonderful job, and it's a shame they aren't more standard in American schooling. Texas Instruments costs more of the same jobs, and is mandatory for certain systems or tests. You need to pay like $40 for a calculator that hasn't changed much if at all from the 1990's.

Meanwhile I have a Casio fx-115ES Plus and it does everything that one did, plus some nice quality of life features, for less money.

This is exactly right. It's not a law of maths in the way that 1+1=2 is a law. It's a convention of notation.

The vast majority of the time, mathematicians use implicit multiplication (aka multiplication indicated by juxtaposition) at a higher priority than division. This makes sense when you consider something like 1/2x. It's an extremely common thing to want to write, and it would be a pain in the arse to have to write brackets there every single time. So 1/2x is universally interpreted as 1/(2x), and not (1/2)x, which would be x/2.

The same logic is what's used here when people arrive at an answer of 1.

If you were to survey a bunch of mathematicians—and I mean people doing academic research in maths, not primary school teachers—you would find the vast majority of them would get to 1. However, you would first have to give a way to do that survey such that they don't realise the reason they're being surveyed, because if they realise it's over a question like this they'll probably end up saying "it's deliberately ambiguous in an attempt to start arguments".

BDMAS bracket - divide - multiply - add - subtract

I think when a number or variable is adjacent a bracket or parenthesis then it's distribution to the terms within should always take place before any other multiplication or division outside of it. I think there is a clear right answer and it's 1.

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.

The problem isn't math, it's the people that suck at at it who write ambigous terms like this, and all the people in the comments who weren't educated properly on what conventions are.

lol, math is literally the only subject that has rules set in stone. This example is specifically made to cause confusion. Division has the same priority as multiplication. You go from left to right. problem here is the fact that you see divison in fraction form way more commonly. A fraction could be writen up as (x)/(y) not x/y (assuming x and y are multiple steps). Plain and simple.

The fact that some calculator get it wrong means that the calculator is wrongly configured. The fact that some people argue that you do () first and then do what's outside it means that said people are dumb.

They managed to get me once too, by everyone spreading missinformation so confidently. Don't even trust me, look up the facts for yourself. And realise that your comment is just as incorrect as everyone who said the answer is 1. (uhm well they don't agree on 0^0, but that's kind of a paradox)

When there are no parentheses, you process left to right on the same tier of operations. That's how it's always been processed.

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.

Well that's just wrong... Multiplication and division have equal priorities so they are done from left to right. So: 8 / 2 * (2 + 2)=8 / 2 * 4=4 * 4=16

Uh.. no the 1 is wrong? Division and multiplication have the same precedence, so the correct order is to evaluate from left to right, resulting in 16.

not to be That Guy, but the phone is actually correct... multiplication and division have the same precedence, so 8 / 2 * 4 should give the same result as 8 * 4 / 2, ie 16

The problem with this is that the division symbol is not an accurate representation of the intended meaning. Division is usually written in fractions which has an implied set of parenthesis, and is the same priority as multiplication. This is because dividing by a number is the same as multiplying by the inverse, same as subtracting is adding the negative of a number.

8/2(2+2) could be rewritten as 8×1/2×(2+2) or (8×(2+2))/2 which both resolve into 16.

No it's ambiguous, you claiming there is one right answer is actually wrong.