Laederon said:

The formula is equivalent to 8 / 2 x (1+4)

You do whats in the parenthesis first (1+4), then multiplication or division in order from left to right, so 8 div 2 then multiply the result by 4

ANSWER = 16

That is wrong, you must deal with the parenthesis first. Your formula equivalent is incorrect, and inaccurate.

The 2 must be interacted with the (1+3) before the division takes place.  2(1+3) : [2X4] i.e. 8

8 divided by 8 is 1

s-pi said:

The answer is 16.

Using the rule system of BODMAS (https://www.mathsisfun.com/operation-order-bodmas.html)

8÷2(1+3) 

B Brackets. 1+3 becomes 4 so we can rewrite the question as

8÷2(4) = 8÷2×4

DM Divide or Multiply from left to right

8÷2×4 = 4×4 = 16

I am definitely a member of the old school lol.

Mathematics are the basis of the exact sciences. Why has that convention been tinkered with? That makes early work meaningless, and now makes two different mathematical statements, which were clearly different, mean the same thing?

I can't believe mathematicians would countenance what would appear to be an unnecessary, and totally confusing change to a well understood principle/instruction............... I will have to look into this for myself

The answer is 1.

Alice Vytsenets said:

Hello Jarls!

We have an exercise for you that seems easy only at first glance. Can you solve it and explain your answer? 

priority to operations in brackets and multiplications

first  =  (1+3) = (4)  

so  8 / 2 x (4)

then  =  2 x (4) =  8

so  8 / 8

résult  1

You can't misuse a convention when you are explaining it to people.

Your second mathematical statement is wrong, the answer to that line would indeed be 16. The parentheses denote a formula that must be calculated in isolation BEFORE it is used in the major equation. A number or symbol adjacent to the parenthesis, denotes that it part of the parenthesis equation, and requires you to multiply the contents by that number/symbol.

Once you put the multiplication sign/symbol adjacent to the parenthesis, that number, in this case "2", ceases to be part of the isolated equation and becomes part of the major/general equation.

pippit said:

oh ye of little faith

                                             

how can 8 divided by 2(1+3)    =     8 divided by (1+3) over 2                 ?????

ie some of you are suggesting that 8 halves x 4       i.e.  (4x4 =16)

                 is the same as 8 divided by 4 halves        i.e.   (8/2 =4 (not 16))

tried this on the BODMAS website and got 8 instead of 4 !!

but write the 2 into (1+3) in the standard long division formulae and you get 16

i.e. the BODMAS website sucks

pipkin said:

the Bodmas website doesn't say what to do with a bracket qualified by a mltiplier

-pi said:

The answer is 16.

Using the rule system of BODMAS (https://www.mathsisfun.com/operation-order-bodmas.html)

8÷2(1+3) 

B Brackets. 1+3 becomes 4 so we can rewrite the question as

8÷2(4) = 8÷2×4

DM Divide or Multiply from left to right

8÷2×4 = 4×4 = 16

I would look at it as 

8÷2(1+3)

then rewrite it as 

8÷2×(1+3)

then solve the brackets then work left to right.

The only way to get 1 is if the equation was

8÷(2(1+3)).

There is a difference between arithmetic and mathematics, and like all things, our understanding and utilization thereof has matured and changed throughout time. Not to mention the different approaches taken through out the maturity of different cultures. 

The simple difference in BEMDAS AND PEMDAS is allusion enough to this, considering the relatively short frame of time in which they have changed from one to the other. 

Just take a look at the common core math kids bring home these days, if you need any convincing. 

Also, the 2 is outside of the parenthesis, denoting that it is to be multiplied by the sum therein, and is not in and of itself a part of the parenthesis, or it would be written 8/(2*3+1) or 8/(2(3+1)), the latter effectively being the same equation and  equating to 1. 

This equation is a jest, and effectively brings out the mathematical equivalent of the grammar police; grammar police that don't realize their grammar is not universal and has not always been as it modernly is, and will not remain as it is (whether it has been as is for a moment or for millennia).

Try to enjoy it for what it is and don't take it too seriously. People have probably been debating this equation longer than any of us have been alive, as well. 

Fun fact: Vikings never historically used written numbers. The pagan numerical rune system didn't come into play until well after the age of Vikings. 

8:2(1+3)=8:2*4 now order of operations 8:2=4, 4*4= 16 pretty easy basic math 

PRYFLLWYD said:

Plarium's answer is probably 8.5

wait...that's the half that happens on the first click and the 2nd click is missed because the program stops everything while it provides a dialogue box to tell you what you just did....I call this "click-mania"!

Eliace said:

There is a difference between arithmetic and mathematics, and like all things, our understanding and utilization thereof has matured and changed throughout time. Not to mention the different approaches taken through out the maturity of different cultures. 

The simple difference in BEMDAS AND PEMDAS is allusion enough to this, considering the relatively short frame of time in which they have changed from one to the other. 

Just take a look at the common core math kids bring home these days, if you need any convincing. 

Also, the 2 is outside of the parenthesis, denoting that it is to be multiplied by the sum therein, and is not in and of itself a part of the parenthesis, or it would be written 8/(2*3+1) or 8/(2(3+1)), the latter effectively being the same equation and  equating to 1. 

This equation is a jest, and effectively brings out the mathematical equivalent of the grammar police; grammar police that don't realize their grammar is not universal and has not always been as it modernly is, and will not remain as it is (whether it has been as is for a moment or for millennia).

Try to enjoy it for what it is and don't take it too seriously. People have probably been debating this equation longer than any of us have been alive, as well. 

Fun fact: Vikings never historically used written numbers. The pagan numerical rune system didn't come into play until well after the age of Vikings. 

Actually....

It's 1! 8/2(1+3)

=8/2(4)

=8/8

I can see how it is tempting to turn

8/2(1+3) into 8/2(4)

but then it would  become 4(4) = 16  working left to right.

I also so see how it looks like an algebra equation and everything outside the brackets should be multiplied by what is inside them.

This would turn 

8/2(1+3) into ((8/2)×1)+((8/2)×3)

which becomes (4×1)+(4×3) = 4 + 12 = 16