What OS/ OSs are you folks using these days?

17 is correct

4/5 + 1? I'm terrible at math

the answer is always going to be 17

Brainlet. It’s 17.

4

5 - mx linux

Manjaro because i wanted linux mint with pacman.

>I'm terrible at math
it shows

it's 5 nerds

Fedora with KDE. It just works.

Thanks

Attached: 1543352284853.png (433x298, 95K)

Desktop Win10.
Laptop (work) Win10.
Laptop (personal) the last version of OS X before they moved to macOS. Need to upgrade that one soon.
And I have a Linux laptop I never use around somewhere too. I think it runs kubuntu.

1 16 2 8 3 4 2 - * - * / +

Attached: 1551231932507.jpg (593x565, 68K)

2 isn't an array so syntax error

>÷
kys

Android 8.0 with cucked Samsung firmware and Windows 10 on my laptop.

Attached: 7e5a1a1.jpg (2448x3264, 335K)

5

16 / 2 [ 8 - 3 ( 4 - 2 )] + 1
>Subtraction inside parenthesis
16 / 2 [ 8 - 3 ( 2 )] +1
>PEMDAS: multiply inside bracket
16 / 2 [ 8 - 6 ] +1
>Subtraction inside bracket
16 / 2 [ 2 ] + 1
>PEMDAS: multiplication and division are equal priority, standard is to work left -> right, divide first
4 [ 2 ] +1
>Multiply
8 + 1
>Add
9

Attached: kz.png (394x329, 100K)

in what universe does 16/2=4? your brain must have accidentally found the square root

MISTAKE
16/2 is 8
8*2 is 16
16+1 is 17

Answer is 17

MacOS, Linux, Windows.

Is it actually useable? I like the idea but imagine it's incredibly slow

complex answer = 5 +0i

muricans can't math
you can't even syntax

So glad I sold my s7 edge for a Pixel

so many retards itt
the answer is five
16/8 (8 - 3 (4 - 2)) + 1
16/8 (8 - 3(2)) + 1
2(8 - 3(2)) + 1
16 - 6(2) + 1
16 - 12 + 1
5

Attached: 1546397952136.jpg (640x720, 48K)

>÷
FUCK OFF

It's 5 you fucking retard.

is there something the matter with this common and recognizable mathematical argument?

cx is interpreted as (cx), dumb frogposter.

freebsd

Your first line is copied wrong, 16/2 not 16/8

parantheses first

16/2[2] + 1

but we really need a better notation for division.

You know exactly what you're doing nigger, fuck off with your shitty bait.

81

Fedora

Attached: linux_fedora.png (640x640, 144K)

Why is this board so full of brainlets?

Attached: brainlets1.png (810x342, 24K)

There's nothing inside those parentheses it's just multiplication at that point

Attached: brainlets2.png (666x548, 25K)

wolframalpha.com/input/?i=16/2(8-3(4-2))+1
fucking retards get the fuck out

Debian, installed it yesterday and I already find it better than Ubuntu in every aspect.

Attached: detnj1-a1cbfd34-4389-469a-9602-67fd96996aa8.jpg (1024x768, 137K)

The answer is pay my code monkeys to solve it for me.

Doing math after college is for wageslaves.

fuck

Attached: 1530803479008.png (130x130, 29K)

is this like reverse baiting
how many levels are we on.

>being so retarded you need a computer to resolve the problem for you
also you wrote it wrong, faggot: wolframalpha.com/input/?i=16/(2(8-3(4-2)))+1

GENTOO

oh so that's how you get 5.

>square brackets
this is not a system of equations or an interval, therefore invalid syntax

you can use different parentheses to make it more legible: (), [] and {}, usually in that order.

Win7 on my Thinkpad T430, I would've installed macOS on it but I'm already used to this environment and I like having more than 2 fps on TF2 and Rocksmith

Been using guix if that counts, it's pretty neat

(+ (/ 16 (* 2 (- 8 (* 3 (- 4 2))))) 1) ;=> 5

>invalid syntax
>in math

Attached: 1550967244423.gif (463x260, 3.3M)

Gentoo on my t420, ryzen 7 1700, and raspberry pi B+v1.2 cluster. I had put debian on my wife's computer, but I might replace it with gentoo because it would be nice to tweak it to be a bit faster.
>Simplify 16 / 2[8-3(4-2]) +1
>16/5

Google chrome

Emacs

systemd

5.
win10 and ubuntu

Attached: math.jpeg.png (821x1027, 60K)

Using ÷: 17
Using /: 5

Given that you did not set this up as a fraction, it is wrong. The parens indicating multiplication have the same precedence as the ÷ so it's 17.

Attached: PLEASEEXCUSEMYDEARAUNTSALLY.jpg (821x699, 169K)

Ubuntu, while I make my own OS good enough to be my daily driver.

Imagine thinking Fedora Media Writer is mandatory

win10 and oreo

you solve from left to right when you have division and multiplication you smooth brains
16 / 2(2) + 1
8(2) + 1
16 + 1
17

kubuntu 18.10
it uses much less ram than windows but makes my laptop very hot

>standard is to work left -> right

this isn't a real rule of arithmetic
OP posted a badly formed expression, there's no answer
calculators are designed to give an answer for convenience, it they were mathematically rigorous they'd throw an error instead.

dualboot windows 10 / kde neon.

Havent logged into win10 in months

Based and redpilled

OpenSUSE Tumbleweed
Windows 10 (in uni, probably enterprise, idk)

Nothing since [ ] isnt properly defined. Is that a vector? Are you treating them like ()? Your equation is nonsensical and has no valid solution without further definition.

Absolutely no actual mathematician does that. Its sometimes used to teach low level calculus but its NEVER used with any regularity because its not well defined notation.

You're an idiot.

[] just means 'Do this before other things.' So, yeah, it's basically ().

16 / 2[8 - 3(4 - 2)] + 1
16 / 2[8 - 3(2)] + 1
16 / 2[8 - 6] + 1
16 / 2[2] + 1
skip E since there are no exponents, change division to multiplication by reciprocal
16 * (1/2) * 2 +1
8 * 2 + 1
16 + 1
17

ambiguous notation, so there does not exist a solution. You literally do not know what the author intended.

but highschoolers/freshmen will ree the shit out when they learn that maths is not some perfect language but rather just notation for conveying an underlying idea, and meaninglessness is possible.

possible exceptions are in the context of programming languages where (to an autistic degree) explicit parse rules for expressions with operators have been defined and documented.

Attached: 93eb771677f247c7be2e016fed6bb53b.png (1200x1044, 479K)

>ambiguous notation, so there does not exist a solution.
I disagree. There seems to be some debate over whether you divide 16 by two then multiply the []. You have to divide first, otherwise ratios don't work.

See pic related.(from 17 here: coranac.com/2009/07/sines/)

Do you think the "1/2 z" is somehow supposed to be 1/(2z)? Of course not, because that would be silly, and not how the rules work.

Attached: 32895628965.png (296x42, 2K)

so while I agree that guessing or strongly arguing for why the interpretation one is forcing on an expression in face of ambiguity (e.g. mixed operators of same precedence) is retarded and nonsense, stating that nobody uses square brackets for legibility along with other parentheses is plain wrong
it is extremely obvious from context whether the brackets denote a vector, an interval, or are in place of normal parentheses.
I mean, there are people who use normal parentheses for matrices, and it is completely obvious from context (as well as the open interval (2,3) )?

What is not obvious from context is when the other interpretations make around the same level of sense (for instance, 1/2/3. Here both (1/2)/3 and 1/(2/3) make sense.

that is clearly not ambiguous, why are you even suggesting this?
OP put everything on flat/linear form which due to division and multiplication having the same precedence (by convention) causes ambiguity

see for instance the notation "1/2pi". It is extremely lazy, ambiguous, and both interpretations are fair.
Just use parentheses, trying to be clever and going HAHA when your notation was misunderstood is just dumb, but I guess that was OPs intention.

(+ 1 (/ 16 (* 2 (- 8 (* 3 (- 4 2))))))
= (+ 1 (/ 16 (* 2 (- 8 (* 3 2)))))
= (+ 1 (/ 16 (* 2 (- 8 6))))
= (+ 1 (/ 16 (* 2 2)))
= (+ 1 (/ 16 4))
= (+ 1 4)
= 5

Q.E.D.

>OP put everything on flat/linear form which due to division and multiplication having the same precedence (by convention) causes ambiguity
I was under the impression that this is resolved simply by understanding that division is always to be treated as representing ratios(because it is), then addition and subtraction are done last.(Because otherwise polynomials just wouldn't work, ever) That leaves multiplication, which is done before addition, and also isn't to be confounded with any surrounding ratios.

my machines have at least one of, debian, (x)ubuntu, or windows 7 on 'em

it's common enough that it's been standardized in most programming languages
eg, the example in of 1/2/3 would be equivalent to (1/2)/3 in say, C (or Java, or Python, or whatever BASIC dialect you're fond of, or whatever)

it's also what I was taught in school, but we also never bothered with using the ÷ symbol past elementary
equations were always written where whatever division was in fractional form, with an expression on top and an expression on the bottom

Correct.

>standardized
except the languages explicitly list how they parse such expressions in the documentation.
There is no common agreed upon left-to-right. The stuff that is taught to primary-highschoolers does not count, as that is dumbed down mechanical rules.

Did you guys know that macs are really good at reading failing HDDs? Had to be good for something, right?

>except the languages explicitly list how they parse such expressions in the documentation.
and all of those follow the same rules for basic arithmetic operators
there are other operations than the standard ones you use in math, and they'll have their own weird places in the order of operations that can differ, but otherwise, arithmetic operators of equal precedence are evaluated left to right

obelus is not a divisor

Windows 7 on my main pc, Solus on my laptop.

16
---------------- + 1 = 5
2[8-3(4-2)]

Trust me, I'm from /sci/, and I only come here to laugh at you brainlets.

Windows 10 for work computer 1
Windows 10 for gaming computer
Ubuntu 18.04 for server/desktop
Ubuntu 18.04 for personal laptop
Mac os whatever the fuck for work computer 2
Busybox whatever the fuck for NAS
Steamos for streaming box

>Q.E.D.
what solver is this, looks nice

(4-2)=2
3*2=6
(8-6)=2
Now we have
16/2*2+1 --- NOT 16/(2*2)+1
16/2=8
8*2=16
16+1 = 17

>(*2 2)
that's where youre wrong, faggot

Attached: 1158CAF9-77F4-4483-BEF8-54503F59E5CC.jpg (1125x1271, 173K)

>arithmetic operators of equal precedence are evaluated left to right
if this is the convention you as an author use, then you have to explicitly state it every time.
It is not a common agreed upon convention.