# Which of these equations is in the right order of operations in this case?

I’m not doing homework, this is a debate over facebook between me and my friend

2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2-2+2 x 0 ? equals WHAT?

I say its 0. My friend says its 26. Which is it? and WHY?

0 because anything times 0 is 0. If it were 2…whatever times 1 THEN it would be 26.

I think. I’m failing math lol so~

your friend 26 is right……..i think

explain why

explain why

explain why

because in order of operations multiplication comes frist so you would do the 2 X 0 then and all the other 2’s and then minus 2

BEDMAS

That’s the order of operations. So, multiplication comes first, because there’s only that and addition. So you multiply two by zero, get zero and add all of the other twos together to get 26. If all the twos were in brackets, then it would be zero.

But I get 30 for the equation you posted.

OH MY GODS, IS THERE FORMATTING NOW?

I JUST PRESSED ENTER, WILL IT ACTUALLY SPACE OUT MY REPLY?

Damn it. It worked above.

I was taught anything x 0 is 0…

youre friend is wrong because there are no parentheses.

2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2-2+(2x0)=26

without parentheses, the zero breaks the whole equation. 28-2+2x0 equates into 28x0

damn all those 2’s

Parentheses Exponents Multipliers Divisors Additions Subtractions …P.E.M.D.A.S.

You’re both wrong - it’s 30. Brackets (there are none) Exponents (there are none) Multiplication 2 x 0 = 0 Division (there are none) Addition: 2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+0 = 30 (15 “2’s” added together is 30, not 26)

But a minus was stuck in there.

. I agree with fillet who implies that Colleen’s logic is correct, and that, although the answer to the example Colleen gives is indeed 30, ….. . ….. the original poster’s question was infact: . 2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2-2+2 x 0 and the correct value in this latter (and original) case is 26, . by internationally agreed and accepted mathematical protocols. . 2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 -2 +2 x 0 = 28 -2 +0 = 26 . As has been correctly pointed out the zero at the end ONLY multiplies the final +2, . and in the event that the poser of the original problem had INTENDED the zero to multiply all the preceding two’s, it would (by accepted convention) be necessary to include brackets / parentheses . i.e. ( 2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 -2 +2) x 0 does equal zero. .

– Best wishes - Majikthise. .

Ah - there is a minus in there - methinks my eyesight is going - thanks fillet :)

Here is a good time for me to plug RPN or Reverse Polish Notation. RPN is a different way of representing equations. In computer science this would be called postfix notation. In the 1970’s and 80’s most of the best calculators used RPN. Today “algebraic” calculators use what computer scientists would call infix notation.

Infix notation 5 + 5 = Postfix notation 5 5 +

So why does it mater if we have operates between operands or after them? RPN or postfix notation completely removes the need for parentheses. The equation above could be represented as:

2 0 * 2 - 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 +

While this doesn’t really save any keystrokes consider an expression with parentheses.

(x + y)(a + b) =

The RPN equivalent would be:

x y + a b + *

The infix version requires 11 keystrokes. In RPN it is 9 (two of the keystrokes are [enter] between numeric operators).

## Yes, I owned a “Sinclair Scientific” calculator that I bought as a kit in the 1970’s that used RPN (aka reverse Polish logic). I got the impression that the term RPN / RPL was coined by Sinclair (or one of his team of engineers) and it’s major advantage was that it enabled the very restrictive cycle of load-operator; (op-code) load-operand; execute instruction; to be implemented within a minimal register set and memory space.

Best wishes - Majikthise.

id say 26 because according to PEMDAS, Multiplication comes before the addition and subtraction. you would multiply 0 by +2 and get 0, then do the res of your problem, thus equaling 26.

The Polish part came from mathematician Jan Lukasiewicz. I don’t know when the term RPN was coined. Postfix was used in stack oriented computers in the 1950’s since it mimicked the way these computers calculated but I don’t know if they referred to it as RPN. The earliest HP calculator I played with only had a 3 level stack so you had to enter formulae in an efficient order since there were no extra slots for intermediate results that aren’t needed yet. I should have mentioned that paper tape adding machines use a hybrid of postifx and infix notation. Addition and subtraction are done in postfix while multiplication and division are done in infix.

off topic…

It is on topic insofar as it relates to the extent to which the ordering protocols in mathematics are actually internationally / universally agreed or accepted. Mathematical results are only valid if they are obtained in accordance with the axiomatic principles that are being implemented. I can argue perfectly correct cases to justify the fact that: (a) 1 + 1 = 2 ; (b) 1+1 = 1 ; (c) 1 + 1 = 10; (among other possible values).

More Like This

### Right Training

Education, Training, Professional Development