Current Events > This math equation is dividing the internet, and no one can agree on an answer

(+) Yeah! (+)

.9999=1?

https://mashable.com/article/math-equation-divides-twitter/

twitter is divided, this is truly a dark time.
---

If you round, yes

If you don't, no
---

Its 1, right?

---

MrK3V posted...

If you round, yes

If you don't, no

That's what's dividing twitter
---

no click the link

i put the ce math meme as a joke
---

Shablagoo posted...

Its 1, right?

wait I think I meant 16

---

8/2(2+2)

= 4(4)

= 16



---

Shablagoo posted...

8/2(2+2)

= 4(4)

= 16

Correct.
---

The answer is 16 and anyone who says 1 is genuinely trolling.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

The answer is 16 and anyone who says 1 is genuinely trolling.

Learn to distribute and stop trolling as per usual
---

Pemdas
---

E32005 posted...

.9999=1?

I trust whatever wolframalpha says

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=.999+repeating+%3D+1



And in case of the other problem, 16 because that's what wolframalpha says
---

I'm so fucking tired of these
---

Sunburst posted...

Shablagoo posted...

8/2(2+2)

= 4(4)

= 16

Correct.

---

As per usual, it depends on the application of the math. There are contexts in which it makes sense to round .6 up to one. There are other instances where you have a very sensitive instrument (giggity) or are using a large unit (giggity) or something and you want to differentiate between 0.999432 and 0.999435.

Arguing over this without context is pointless.
---

RescueBC posted...

As per usual, it depends on the application of the math. There are contexts in which it makes sense to round .6 up to one. There are other instances where you have a very sensitive instrument (giggity) or are using a large unit (giggity) or something and you want to differentiate between 0.999432 and 0.999435.

Arguing over this without context is pointless.

If you're talking about .9...

then no, it's always 1.
---

RescueBC posted...

As per usual, it depends on the application of the math. There are contexts in which it makes sense to round .6 up to one. There are other instances where you have a very sensitive instrument (giggity) or are using a large unit (giggity) or something and you want to differentiate between 0.999432 and 0.999435.

Arguing over this without context is pointless.

E32005 posted...

no click the link

i put the ce math meme as a joke

---

Shablagoo posted...

RescueBC posted...

As per usual, it depends on the application of the math. There are contexts in which it makes sense to round .6 up to one. There are other instances where you have a very sensitive instrument (giggity) or are using a large unit (giggity) or something and you want to differentiate between 0.999432 and 0.999435.

Arguing over this without context is pointless.

E32005 posted...

no click the link

i put the ce math meme as a joke

I mostly responded bc I wanted to throw in those giggities but if you insist lolz
---

The question is whether the result of the parenthesis-encapsulated equation (computed first) is also multiplied with 2 first, but I suppose substituting 2(4) with 2*(4) would suggest not.

So, 8 / 2 * ( 2 + 2 ) = 16
---

E32005 posted...

.9999=1?

https://mashable.com/article/math-equation-divides-twitter/

twitter is divided, this is truly a dark time.

Seems people forget that when distrubuting, one must distribute the entirety of the factor to the left of the parenthesis.

That is to say:

82(2+2) = ((82)x2)+((82)x2) = 16

---

tri sapphire posted...

E32005 posted...

.9999=1?

https://mashable.com/article/math-equation-divides-twitter/

twitter is divided, this is truly a dark time.

Seems people forget that when distrubuting, one must distribute the entirety of the factor to the left of the parenthesis.

That is to say:

82(2+2) = ((82)x2)+((82)x2) = 16

Or you can just distribute 1/2.
---

The thread yesterday was better.

It's a bad question that wouldn't be written by anyone serious. More modern calculators (thanks Wolfram) will probably say 16 and you should probably say 16.
But math is just a set of rules that are made up and mathematicians could easily say, "Do anything attached to parentheses first." I believe some programming languages would evaluate that to 1.

NeoShadowhen posted...

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Not this shit again

Aww give them a break. For some people, order of operations is the cleverest thing theyve got.

---

tri sapphire posted...

E32005 posted...

.9999=1?

https://mashable.com/article/math-equation-divides-twitter/

twitter is divided, this is truly a dark time.

Seems people forget that when distrubuting, one must distribute the entirety of the factor to the left of the parenthesis.

That is to say:

82(2+2) = ((82)x2)+((82)x2) = 16

What does it do ?
---

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

What does it do ?

If you don't distribute the entire factor and leave the 8 hanging, e.g.

82(2+2) = 8((2x2)+(2x2))

Then you get the wrong answer of 1.

---

tri sapphire posted...

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

What does it do ?

If you don't distribute the entire factor and leave the 8 hanging, e.g.

82(2+2) = 8((2x2)+(2x2))

Then you get the wrong answer of 1.

I mean in general.
---

MrK3V posted...

Pemdas

Please excuse my dear aunt Sally.

As for the whole .9999=1 thing, its a matter of deciding how small a piece that whole 1 is missing. The more 9s you tack on, the smaller it gets.

The funny thing is I got 1 and I learned PEMDAS in school lmao.
---

Whoever writes equations like that should be raped by a BBC

As it turns out, the way the equation is written intentionally confusing.

Wow, you mean like every other example of this idiotic bait that's ever been posted on the internet? And no, the ambiguity as nothing to do with whether or not you learned it as "pemdas" vs "bodmas" or whatever else because in either instance, operations for m/d and a/s are solved in priority of left to right. the ambiguity comes from the interpretation of the division operator and whether or not to treat everything after it as the denominator of the expression. dumb article about a dumb topic.
---

ChocoboMog123 posted...

The thread yesterday was better.

It's a bad question that wouldn't be written by anyone serious. More modern calculators (thanks Wolfram) will probably say 16 and you should probably say 16.
But math is just a set of rules that are made up and mathematicians could easily say, "Do anything attached to parentheses first." I believe some programming languages would evaluate that to 1.

As a programmer I am also of the opinion that it is one, sticking to parenthesis being top priority.

I hate these stupid math questions where it is only confusing because people type it out in one line of text when in reality it would be written out in a different format any other time.
---

billcom6 posted...

I hate these stupid math questions where it is only confusing because people type it out in one line of text when in reality it would be written out in a different format any other time.

Ive seen many examples of people getting 16 because they arbitrarily decided to divide first, or not solve parenthesis first. When one pemdases, they should pemdas consistently.

Read the article people. Both answers are right.

1 for me, pemdas
---

8 2 (2+2) ----> 2+2 = 4

8 2 4 ----> 8 2 = 4

4 4

16

What is confusing you all?

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

Read the article people. Both answers are right.

1 for me, pemdas

Pemdas gives you 16

Solving parentheses first gets you 2+2 = 4

8 2 4 is what gets left after solving parentheses and exponents first.

Next you solved for multiplication and division

8 1/2 4 or 8 2 4 how ever you want to read it, either way it is 16.

1 is never the right answer no matter how much that article lies.

I have figured out the confusion.

You people do not understand the associative property of multiplication and are assuming that 82(2+2)= 82(4)

This part right here

2(4) that this is a "parentheses set" you have to solve first. When in reality it is just a alternate method of writing 24 and has NOTHING to do with PEMDAS/Parentheses sets

Anyways associative property of multiplication says you can put multipliers anywhere you want.

So 8 2 (2+2) is really saying

8 1/2 (2+2) and you can put these in any order as you see fit. Such as (2+2) 8 1/2.

Does that make you confused PEMDAS people get this is not 1 and it is in fact 16?

And 4 posts later you're still a turbonerd loser

Why is an ancient CE meme trending

PBusted posted...

Why is an ancient CE meme trending

Because people are bad at math.
---

A_A_Battery posted...

As for the whole .9999=1 thing, its a matter of deciding how small a piece that whole 1 is missing. The more 9s you tack on, the smaller it gets.

It's an infinite series. The value doesn't approach 1, it equals 1.
---

This divides Twitter NOW?? wtf this is ancient
---

This would be a lot more interesting as a physics question.

---

It's both 1 and 16 because the problem is written poorly.

In one case 8 2(2+2) goes to 8 2 4 to 4 4 = 16.

In the other case it goes 82(2+2) to 8(4+4) or 88=1

In one more scenario you get 82(2+2) into 84+4 to 2+4=6

So yeah, it's a pain because it isnt clear which formulas its using to determine which answer is "right"

Although in the above examples, the 6 answer is the least "right" one
---

scar the 1 posted...

This divides Twitter NOW?? wtf this is ancient

Everything divides twitter nowadays
---

A_A_Battery posted...

As for the whole .9999=1 thing, its a matter of deciding how small a piece that whole 1 is missing. The more 9s you tack on, the smaller it gets.

Ugh, no it's nothing to do with "deciding how small a piece" is missing, that's not how the concept of recurring works.

There IS NO DIFFERENCE between 1 and 0.9recurring, that's the whole point. They are of the same value.

Sabram posted...

It's both 1 and 16 because the problem is written poorly.

In one case 8 2(2+2) goes to 8 2 4 to 4 4 = 16.

In the other case it goes 82(2+2) to 8(4+4) or 88=1

In one more scenario you get 82(2+2) into 84+4 to 2+4=6

So yeah, it's a pain because it isnt clear which formulas its using to determine which answer is "right"

Although in the above examples, the 6 answer is the least "right" one

Uh, no. Your second and third cases are just plain wrong given the equation as written.

Now, if it were actually written ambiguously with a "/" instead of a "", which could make it into a fraction (8 over 2(2+2)) then you would have a case for your second case.

No idea what kind of math you'd need to be doing to get the third case though.

---

the answer is simple

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grlOImCXqW0" data-time="
---

E32005 posted...

.9999=1?

https://mashable.com/article/math-equation-divides-twitter/

twitter is divided, this is truly a dark time.

This specifically isn't 1.

But if the .9999 continues infinitely then it is the same as 1, or equal to 1, because there is no intervening number or increase in value between it and 1.
---