Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

230 - 220 x 0.5 = 5!

Chizz
Chizz Posts: 28,331
in Not Sports Related
Discuss

Comments

  • guinnessaddick
    guinnessaddick Posts: 28,617
    edited September 2022
    Correct. Nothing to see here, move on.
  • johnnybev1987
    johnnybev1987 Posts: 11,410
    (230-220) x 0.5 
    10 halved (as 0.5 is half a whole number)
    10 x 0.5 = 5
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,843
    230 - (220 x 0.5) = 120

    5! = 5x4x3x2x1 = 120

    QED
  • Big_Bad_World
    Big_Bad_World Posts: 5,859
    Factorial.
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,331
    One point to bob, one point off johnny
  • KiwiValley
    KiwiValley Posts: 3,379
    BODMAS 
  • MrOneLung
    MrOneLung Posts: 26,849
    bobmunro said:
    230 - (220 x 0.5) = 120

    5! = 5x4x3x2x1 = 120

    QED
    This
  • MrOneLung
    MrOneLung Posts: 26,849

    Am sure we have had multiple bidmas/Bodmas type questions on here before 
  • stackitsteve
    stackitsteve Posts: 12,102
    edited September 2022
    I think we’ve had this exact one before. 

    5! not 5 is what makes it correct. 
  • redman
    redman Posts: 5,285
    to explain 5factorial (5!) in more detail 
     5! = 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1 = 120
  • Sponsored links:



  • stackitsteve
    stackitsteve Posts: 12,102
    stackitsteve said:
    I think we’ve had this exact one before. 

    5! not 5 is what makes it correct. 
    Turns out we have had it before.
    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
  • BR7_addick
    BR7_addick Posts: 10,210
    My trusty old scientific calculator which has got me through 12/13 accounts exams to date says 120!
  • stop_shouting
    stop_shouting Posts: 3,679
    120. I’m sure we had a thread like this before. That’s the only way I concluded it’s 120 rather than 5.
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,625
    edited September 2022
    KiwiValley said:
    BODMAS 
    Exactly  !

    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. 
  • MrOneLung
    MrOneLung Posts: 26,849
    stackitsteve said:
    I think we’ve had this exact one before. 

    5! not 5 is what makes it correct. 
    But why do you have to say factorial to make it correct ?
    The question is not 'what is the factorial of this equation' 
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,843
    MrOneLung said:
    stackitsteve said:
    I think we’ve had this exact one before. 

    5! not 5 is what makes it correct. 
    But why do you have to say factorial to make it correct ?
    The question is not 'what is the factorial of this equation' 
    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.
  • Todds_right_hook
    Todds_right_hook Posts: 10,881
    I miss the would ya posts
  • MrOneLung
    MrOneLung Posts: 26,849
    bobmunro said:
    MrOneLung said:
    stackitsteve said:
    I think we’ve had this exact one before. 

    5! not 5 is what makes it correct. 
    But why do you have to say factorial to make it correct ?
    The question is not 'what is the factorial of this equation' 
    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.
    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!
  • GoOnYouHaddocks
    GoOnYouHaddocks Posts: 1,044
    KiwiValley said:
    BODMAS 

    I was taught it as BIMDAS; Brackets, Indices, Multiplication/Division, Addition/Subtraction.
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,843
    edited September 2022
    GoOnYouHaddocks said:
    KiwiValley said:
    BODMAS 

    I was taught it as BIMDAS; Brackets, Indices, Multiplication/Division, Addition/Subtraction.
    Either is common - O (Orders) is probable better as it covers powers, roots and indices. 
  • Sponsored links:



  • Wheresmeticket
    Wheresmeticket Posts: 17,304
    Wrong.
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,331
    Wheresmeticket? said:
    Wrong.
    How so?
  • soapy_jones
    soapy_jones Posts: 21,350
    Listen lads stand aside i'm a maths teacher...

    6ft 2inches

    I didn't say i was a good maths teacher!
  • AddicksAddict
    AddicksAddict Posts: 15,783
    stackitsteve said:
    I think we’ve had this exact one before. 

    5! not 5 is what makes it correct. 
    And here's me thinking 5! is five said very forcefully.
  • thai malaysia addick
    thai malaysia addick Posts: 18,333
    42
  • Solidgone
    Solidgone Posts: 10,207
    7
  • Friend Or Defoe
    Friend Or Defoe Posts: 18,083


    The bloke who created the theory behind this died at 20 so shouldn't be too difficult.
  • Wheresmeticket
    Wheresmeticket Posts: 17,304
    edited September 2022
    Chizz said:
    Wheresmeticket? said:
    Wrong.
    How so?
    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.

    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.

Categories

“Marketplace”