![For math nerds only! [564x329 - 48KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/cy5o0y.jpg){kind=link}
Nope, the equation is correct according to the order of operations rule.
I missed it myself the first time, too.
True. I recall a similar post some time ago that sparked a conversation about the order of operations. I did a quick search and didn't find what I was thinking of, so maybe I'm mistaken. It boiled down to some not using PEMDAS correctly.
If I'm taking a note for later I'll write something like this as 230 - (220 * 0.5) just to make sure I don't trip myself by not looking close.
I'll give you a hint: Read it even more closely.
(There's also a spoiler in the comments.)
You got me. I missed the bang!
No one's questioning whether the pedantic order of operations leads to 5. The ambiguity is whether the equation was intended to be written in that form, or whether it was a limitation of typography, which generally doesn't allow you to write proper equations.
It's ambiguous because typography makes it unclear if it's 230 - 220 x (1/2) or (230 - 220 x 1) / 2
(post is archived)