[dayglored]

> For them to come up with 16 the question would have to read what is 8/2 X (2+2).

Ah, but that is what the problem DOES read. The implied multiplication operation between the first '2' and the parenthesized (2+2) is not somehow granted higher priority than the division that precedes it. It's just a multiplication. It does not bind the '2' any tighter for the fact that it's implied.

The simple fact is that the problem is intentionally stated poorly, in order to encourage ambiguity and multiple interpretations.

The other simple fact is that the rules of order of operation are by agreement for the sake of notational clarity. One could construct a different set of rules, and as long as it was consistent, it would be valid.

But mathematicians have agreed upon one set of rules, and it's best to abide by them if you want to be understood accurately.

[Enterprise]

We were also taught to factor the numbers, with 8 being the top number and 2(2+2) being the bottom number. When we take 8/2(2+2) it becomes thus:

_____8______
___2(2+2)___

Divide 8 by the multiplier 2 and the result is:

_____4______
____(2+2)___

Then:

_____4______
_____4______

The result being 1.

Using factoring you cannot possibly come up with an answer of 16.

I am neither a teacher nor a mathematician. I am in total agreement with you that weasels can take a basic equation like this and try to confuse someone. Going back to what I posted, for the answer to come out to 16 the equation cannot be written as 8/2(2+2). I would sit down with the person if it was possible, and write it out, as above, to show where the misconception is, and suggest they take an algebra class.

[Mr. K]

I was taught that 2 connected is an operation on the parentheses.

so 2(2+2) = (2(2+2))

Is that wrong?