-2

For the problem 8÷2(2+2) I have found two approaches to solve the problem.

1st one is: $\frac{8}{2(2+2)}$

This looks like a direct approach ad we got 1 as answer.

2nd one is using BODMAS:

8/2(2+2) 8/2(4) - Brackets 8/2 * 4 i.e 4*4 - There are no brackets for 2 and 4. Therefore , using BODMAS. Divison will have a higher precedence. Answer comes to be 16.

Therefore , I am getting 2 answers and am not sure which one is the correct one.

J. W. Tanner
  • 63,683
  • 4
  • 43
  • 88
Srijan
  • 235
  • 3
    As written, the "problem" is ambiguously stated. I hate these because it neglects grouping symbols, which is why no self-respecting person uses $\div$ to denote division without the presence of grouping symbols. – Sean Roberson Aug 17 '23 at 19:18
  • 3
    I mean you can just interpret it the cs way where operations of similar significance are performed left to right. As long as you define what you are going to do everything is good lol. This problem is ambiguous because it’s not properly defined. – Captain Chicky Aug 17 '23 at 19:19
  • 3
    They problem itself is wrong because it's ambiguous. It's one of the reason we don't use $\div$ in higher mathematics. Also, it's not associative meaning $(x \div y) \div z \neq x \div (y\div z)$ in general. Instead we multiply by inverses (reciprocals) since multiplication is associative. – CyclotomicField Aug 17 '23 at 19:23

1 Answers1

-2

If we were very picky, then we could claim that division does not really exists. What we commonly call division is multiplication with an inverse element. As soon as we use a linear notation such as $\div$ or $/$ and there is more than one letter after it - in your example from the alphabet of digits and arithmetic signs - it is no longer obvious which of them should be inversed. Furthermore, "division" is no associative notation, i.e. order matters. This means that "division" requires parentheses in all linear notations.

Marius S.L.
  • 2,501