Have you ever seen a math issue on the internet that simply didn’t add up? If so, you are not by yourself. A math problem went viral a few years ago, igniting discussions among mathematicians and casual solvers alike. 8 ÷ 2(2 plus 2) appeared to be a straightforward equation, yet people kept coming up with different solutions.
Editors from Popular Mechanics were among the committee that determined it to be 16. They first solved inside the parentheses to obtain 4, then divided 8 by 2 to obtain 4, and then multiplied by 4 to arrive at 16 in accordance with PEMDAS (Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction).
But the expression was perceived differently by another group. After solving the parentheses, they calculated the solution as 1, viewing it as 8 ÷ (2 × 4). They thought that the equation’s structure gave division priority, leading to a clear outcome.
Later, experts weighed in. While 16 is mathematically true, the equation’s format is unclear, according to Mike Breen of the American Mathematical Society. Rhett Allain, a professor of physics, commented that it could be easier to understand as 8/(2(2 + 2)), which would result in a response of 1.
Ultimately, the challenge demonstrated how ambiguity in notation may impact even simple math by allowing for alternative interpretations and possible outcomes.
