Untitled

That's valid C

1 :^)

echo $((16/(2*(8-(3*(4-2))))+1))

Attached: 1511725133057.png (600x800, 657K)

That's a valid SIGSEGV
otherwise you're writing over BIOS mapped memory, still cringe.

16 / 2(8-3(4-2)) + 1
8(8-3(4-2)) + 8
72 - 24(4-2)
x = 24

The answer is 17
drooling retards
>implicit multiplication has higher precedence then explicit division
lol no
it's agreed upon in higher mathematics that multiplication by juxtaposition doesn't have any special precedence
another retard
epic

Attached: Screenshot_20190509-123935.png (1080x2160, 71K)

>implicit multiplication has higher precedence then explicit division
There's no divine rule on operator precedence, and many people don't do it that way. Ambiguity should always be avoided, and the ÷ sign should never be used.

What do square brackets mean?

>This stupid bait thread again

Maxima 5.42.2-8.fc30 says 17

Attached: Screenshot from 2019-05-09 18-54-34.png (404x180, 4K)

i really hope this is bait

>implicit multiplication has higher precedence then explicit division
it doesn't

>implicit multiplication has higher precedence then explicit division
it doesn't

I thought it was 17 at first, then I realized I was doing it wrong. It's 5.

no it's not you brainlet

Same here. I almost fell into the same trap.

5

it's 17, retards

>÷
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelus#In_mathematics
>The ISO 80000-2 standard for mathematical notation recommends only the solidus or fraction bar for division, or the colon for ratios; it says that the obelus "should not be used" for division.
never post this image again

Attached: 24e.jpg (600x1148, 64K)

the 16 / 2[2] + 1 is
>simplified to
16 / 4 + 1
that's what the parantheses are for

Pemdas nigger, it's
16 / 2(2) + 1
8(2) + 1
17
2(2) = 2 * 2

Try this:
echo $((16/2*(8-(3*(4-2)))+1)

It's 17. Check pic.

Attached: 17.png (502x358, 2K)

Indexing.

fucking nigger from operation 1 to operation 2 you did not simplify the Parentheses first, that's the P in PEMDAS, you coon.

No because 8-3(4-2) is a syntax error, it'll never run.

parentheses already simplified to get two you dick muncher
2(2) concerns the multiplication step of pemdas, not parentheses
you are rarted

Simplyfy 16/2*2

no retard, you cannot move to other operation until parantheses have been eliminated, just because 2(2) equals 2*2 does not make te expresions the same.
if (2) was expressed as: (1+1)
would you still solve it the same, subhuman?

I got 17

>no retard, you cannot move to other operation until parantheses have been eliminated,
you are the dumbest nigger alive
parentheses were already completed, it's just multiplication and division which you solve from left to right
>HURRR IF THE PROBLEM WAS DIFFERENT THE ANSWER WOULD BE DIFFERENT TOO
amazing insight user
what's it like being a highschool dropout?

Step 1 is 4-2
Then 3x2
8-6
2x4
16÷4
4+1
5

julia> 16 ÷ 2(8 - 3(4 - 2)) + 1
5

this is apparently too difficult to comprehend for an evolitionary dead end like you but i'll make it short:
16 / 2 (2) - at this step you have parantheses, you must get rid of them first; that is accomplished by solving 2(2) first

Attached: Screenshot_20190510-041529__01.jpg (1080x1458, 113K)

retard
retard
oh my fucking god
you monkey brained ape
you fucking paint huffing retard
2(2) can be rewritten as 2 * 2
parentheses were already fucking done, there is nothing left to do
you faggot nigger loser
16/2*2 + 1
solve that, oh wait you can't
fuck off
look at the pic in Get off my board you FUCKING low iq subhuman

Attached: 1552205459354.png (777x777, 419K)

The answer is the IQ of Jow Forums.