196

16574 readers

1933 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

421

Glitch in the matrix (ani.social)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

575 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

You left out the way it can be rewritten which most mathematicians would actually use, which is 8/(2(2+2)), which resolves to 1.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Division is usually written in fractions

Division and fractions aren't the same thing.

fractions which has an implied set of parenthesis

Fractions are explicitly Terms. Terms are separated by operators (such as division) and joined by grouping symbols (such as a fraction bar), so 1÷2 is 2 terms, but ½ is 1 term.

8/2(2+2) could be rewritten as 8×1/2×(2+2)

No, it can't. 2(2+2) is 1 term, in the denominator. When you added the multiply you broke it into 2 terms, and sent the (2+2) into the numerator, thus leading to a different answer. 8/2(2+2)=1.