Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
230 - 220 x 0.5 = 5!
Chizz
Posts: 28,351
Discuss
1
Comments
-
Correct. Nothing to see here, move on.0
-
(230-220) x 0.5
10 halved (as 0.5 is half a whole number)
10 x 0.5 = 52 -
230 - (220 x 0.5) = 120
5! = 5x4x3x2x1 = 120
QED10 -
Factorial.0
-
One point to bob, one point off johnny1
-
BODMAS3
-
Am sure we have had multiple bidmas/Bodmas type questions on here before0 -
I think we’ve had this exact one before.5! not 5 is what makes it correct.4
-
to explain 5factorial (5!) in more detail
5! = 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1 = 120
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Turns out we have had it before.stackitsteve said:I think we’ve had this exact one before.5! not 5 is what makes it correct.
In fact, it was the exact same title.
Furthermore, it was the same person who created the thread.
https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/86194/230-220-x-0-5-5/p1
10 -
My trusty old scientific calculator which has got me through 12/13 accounts exams to date says 120!0
-
120. I’m sure we had a thread like this before. That’s the only way I concluded it’s 120 rather than 5.0
-
Exactly !KiwiValley said:BODMAS
Need to know what part of the equation to do first. If you take it at face value then the answer is 5. But put a couple of brackets in & it would change the answer completely.
Edit.
No idea what an exclamation mark at the end means - never used it when I was at school in the early 80's but then I only did "O" level maths. I just thought Chizz was exclaiming the answer.1 -
But why do you have to say factorial to make it correct ?stackitsteve said:I think we’ve had this exact one before.5! not 5 is what makes it correct.
The question is not 'what is the factorial of this equation'0 -
The only way you can solve the problem using BODMAS principles(or rather agree the answer) is by recognising the exclamation mark as the mathematical symbol for Factorial rather than, as many would, see the exclamation mark as indicating a surprising answer.MrOneLung said:
But why do you have to say factorial to make it correct ?stackitsteve said:I think we’ve had this exact one before.5! not 5 is what makes it correct.
The question is not 'what is the factorial of this equation'3 -
I miss the would ya posts11
-
I didn't even see the ! on the original question - I thought people were just saying the answer was 120 and then taking it further to say that is 5!bobmunro said:
The only way you can solve the problem using BODMAS principles(or rather agree the answer) is by recognising the exclamation mark as the mathematical symbol for Factorial rather than, as many would, see the exclamation mark as indicating a surprising answer.MrOneLung said:
But why do you have to say factorial to make it correct ?stackitsteve said:I think we’ve had this exact one before.5! not 5 is what makes it correct.
The question is not 'what is the factorial of this equation'0 -
KiwiValley said:BODMAS
I was taught it as BIMDAS; Brackets, Indices, Multiplication/Division, Addition/Subtraction.3 -
Either is common - O (Orders) is probable better as it covers powers, roots and indices.GoOnYouHaddocks said:KiwiValley said:BODMAS
I was taught it as BIMDAS; Brackets, Indices, Multiplication/Division, Addition/Subtraction.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Wrong.0
-
How so?Wheresmeticket? said:Wrong.0 -
Listen lads stand aside i'm a maths teacher...
6ft 2inches
I didn't say i was a good maths teacher!0 -
And here's me thinking 5! is five said very forcefully.stackitsteve said:I think we’ve had this exact one before.5! not 5 is what makes it correct.2 -
422
-
70
-

The bloke who created the theory behind this died at 20 so shouldn't be too difficult.1 -
order of operations convention designed to overcome unintentional ambiguity. 230 - 220 x 0.5 is calculated as 230 - (220x0.5), not (230-220) x 0.5. If the latter is what is wanted that is the form in which it would need to be written.Chizz said:
How so?Wheresmeticket? said:Wrong.
Edit - I am wrong. 5! = 120. Thank-you for introducing me to factorials. If I'd bothered to read the thread I'd have discovered this by post 4.
I've been sums shamed.3












