~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
FalloutFan2
[–]phreshstart26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Well that's poorly written math. It depends if its:
20 20 -------- or ----- * (2*2) 5(2*2) 5
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]a17c81a3-2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You are incorrect, the division operator is executed first much as multiplication is executed before plus or minus.
Right to left or otherwise has no effect.
[–]Ferfooktus2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
No. He's quite correct. Completely correct. Grouped terms first, left to right. Left to right does have a very important result.
[–]a17c81a30 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Ok seems I was a bit off:
There are several operators that have precedence, but division is ranked the same as multiplication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
Mathematically there is no difference in executing division before multiplication, but I was able to produce differences when doing integer math. These examples showed the division/multiplication operators to be equally ranked in the programming language.
[–]WikiTextBot0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Order of operations
In mathematics and computer programming, the order of operations (or operator precedence) is a collection of rules that reflect conventions about which procedures to perform first in order to evaluate a given mathematical expression.
For example, in mathematics and most computer languages, multiplication is granted a higher precedence than addition, and it has been this way since the introduction of modern algebraic notation. Thus, the expression 2 + 3 × 4 is interpreted to have the value 2 + (3 × 4) = 14, not (2 + 3) × 4 = 20. These conventions exist to eliminate ambiguity while allowing notation to be as brief as possible.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.22
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
You don't really need those planes to stay in the sky do you?
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well... with the feminist revision/rejection of Newtonian Physics... all one has to do is "feeeeeeel" that the plane should fly; and somehow it "magically" will (or at least -- in feminist theory -- it should, because... well because VAGINA!)
It's a silly lesson.
It's nonsensical, but it is anything and everything BUT "silly."
The end goal of learning this type of math is usually to be a mathematician, scientist, and/or programmer.
No -- mathematician, scientist, and/or programmer -- is most certainly is NOT the end goal of this; and it isn't a "type of math"... in fact the goal of this is not to teach "math" at all; rather more the opposite: to get kids to believe that "math" is some subjective/ambiguous thing that one doesn't need to bother to actually learn (certainly not as a "discipline" or as a tool to be used in a disciplined way), but instead where one can merely "guess" and where the opinion of A is of the same value as the opinion of B (or C, D, E.. Z).
IOW that there are "endless" answers and that they are all "equally correct" -- much like the whole "gender ambiguity" bullshit (that there is an almost endless/infinite array of "genders" and that they are a matter of what one "feels" rather than any objective biological reality).
[–]project_mayhem_21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
16=1
therefore:
16-1=1-1
15=0
15/15=0/15
1=0
1+1=0+1
2=1
count the number of things in the set that includes feminism and cancer. there are 2.
therefore, feminism is cancer
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This looks like the old joke
/#define TRUE FALSE
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I came out with Feminism is a Gay Fish.
[–]project_mayhem_0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Those fish don't need bicycles, so long as they have a mouthful of fish dicks.
[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
16=1 therefore: 16-1=1-1 15=0 15/15=0/15 1=0
Yup... that's a PERFECT example of the kind of inane "proof" exercise/example being used here.
CF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_fallacy
[–]WikiTextBot2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Mathematical fallacy
In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often exhibited, and sometimes collected, as illustrations of a concept of mathematical fallacy. There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof: a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof just in the same way, but in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies, there is some concealment in the presentation of the proof. For example, the reason validity fails may be a division by zero that is hidden by algebraic notation. There is a striking quality of the mathematical fallacy: as typically presented, it leads not only to an absurd result, but does so in a crafty or clever way.
[–]project_mayhem_1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
yes. and I can further construct any proof of anything from the initial assertion. the trick (which should only be used for humorous purposes) is to get a positive number to equal zero or for one to equal a different integer. from this, I can always count objects and then mathematically prove them not to exist or not to exist as distinct from one another.
this idea that both answers are "equally correct" is brainwashing children in the post-modern criticism that all cultural norms are "arbitrary". in the example, the / can be defined as creating a fraction with everything before as the numerator and everything after as the denominator, or it can be defined to mean the same as ÷. the selection between which it means is arbitrary, but this does not mean that both are correct.
it's all well and good for teachers and tumblrinas and assorted eggheads to philosophize over whether I've proved that 1=16 or that feminism equals cancer. but in the real world, I have to use numbers to count things. and when a guy like me is done counting, the engine has to start, the lights have to come on, the support beam has to hold up the ceiling, the paint has to adhere to the substrate, the water has to be safe to drink. and if we fuck it up, we have to do it over again, hopefully without anyone having been hurt. our complaints that the correct methods we failed to follow were "arbitrary" would fall on deaf ears were we dumb enough to offer them.
[–]UnPawsed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Jesus fucking Christ that's the most clever thing I've seen in a while.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]IAmTheDos1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Is this specific to USA? Because we have had some doozies of progressive curriculum changes and they sound eerily similar to this type of thinking.
[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Is this specific to USA?
LOL... not hardly.
The specific name of the curriculum changes is probably different in each country, but it's a "global" (or at least "pervasive western first world") phenom.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]DWShimoda2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
elementary school math was already brainless
Indeed. Like the rest of the "schooling" and so called "educational" [sic] system... it has become entirely "unhinged" and "unmoored" from the real world.
and then (((they))) had to go and do this
Well, they didn't have to... they have chosen to do this -- quite intentionally and purposefully (to push/promote a specific debilitating agenda and worldview).
CF Ayn Rand's essay (and the Victor Hugo writings) on the "Comprachicos" -- this is a form of turning children into "monsters" -- and disabling them via/inside their own minds.
[–]DocHolliday2267 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link
Parentheses always get done first, so it's 2x2=4. Then multiplication is next highest priority so 5x4=20. Finally division 20/20=1.
Common Core is such shit. Mathematics is absolute. 16 is simply an incorrect answer. Two different answers cannot be equally correct. That's not how math works.
[–]Ultramegasaurus11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link
Multiplication and division have the same priority. In that case, you go left to right. Thus 16 is correct.
[–]DocHolliday2264 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Oh shit, yeah you're right. My bad. See, unlike feminists, I can admit when I'm wrong.
Common core is still shit. Both answers are not equally correct. One is correct and one is just plain wrong.
[–]RedTenet1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
You're not wrong, the answer is 1. You are wrong about your reasoning though.
[–]Fagl40 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
How is the answer 1, first you get rid of the parentheses, 20 / 5 (2 * 2) ==> 20 / 5 * 4, now the mutiplication and division have the same priority so 20 / 5 ==> 4 and 4 * 4 = 16.
[–]RedTenet-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
The 5 is included in the brackets as it is hugging it. So you do 5(2x2) which is 5(4) which then equals 20.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]RedTenet0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
No I'm not, it's basic maths.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Suggestion; go to a library and ask for a very old math book, the oldest the better. You will note that according to the rules at that time, the only possible answer for this problem is 1 - period. Therefore, ALL other answers are wrong.
The question you want to ask then is 1) who 2) why 3) what for, are these established rules being changed all of a sudden?
[–]keltsbeard1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
When did they have same priority? I was always taught that you do every type of each, as in, do all of the parentheses, then every exponent, then every multiplication, then every division, then every addition, then every subtraction. You didn't go on to the next 'letter' until all of the current parts were done.
[–]Griever1140 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thats what i was taught as well.
[–]mentalidade_logica0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link
Multiplication and division have the same priority.
False. It's multiplication first then division. But before that it's the brackets.
[–]Aredon866 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
In finland they teach us that they have the same priority. I was a bit weirded out when i got the answer 16.
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
aka feminism controlled education purposely bringing chaos to something as pure as math, by changing eons of worldwide accepted rules. They are already attacking Newton.
If you follow the well established rules, the answer can only be 1 and everything else is false. Now, if you change the rules thou, anything can be everything, aka chaos.
[–]Aredon864 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Now that i checked a bit more from the internet, i cant find a source that the order of operations i was taught was incorrect. Can you give a source for what you are claiming?
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Try "Order of Operations" by "Math Goodies."
[–]Aredon863 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Checked it and it is ecactly as we are taught. Multiplication and division are at same hierarchy.
See example 3 as it has all the elements as the example in the picture: brackets, division, multiplication and adding.
http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol7/order_operations.html
EDIT: no adding in the picture, but does not really change the point.
[–]mentalidade_logica0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link
Multiplication and division are at same hierarchy.
It depends on the rules, thus the results can be different.
Example 3 fits with what I said. Edit
[–]Aredon863 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
That means 16 is correct answer
First brackets. 20/5 * (2 * 2)= 20/5 * 4
Then division and multiplication from left to right
20/5 * 4= 4 * 4= 16
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]HelperBot_0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 82281
[–]mentalidade_logica3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Wrong.
Why? Because it is impossible for a problem to have two correct outcomes.
[–]mentalidade_logica2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
What is the square root of 49?
Definition of square root = To find the square root of a number, find its prime factors. 49=7×7.
Definition of a 'prime factor' = By the usual definition of prime for integers, negative integers can NOT, I reiterate, not be prime.
HINT: There are two correct answers.
Only in a feminist controlled education system.
You sound like someone who never got past 3rd grade math.
and you sound like a Doctor of Women's Studies, aka a diploma as useful as a rear tit (then again, if you could fill it with your favored drink, pretty soothing at nigh-time). Ouch!
[–]secant1287 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link
I look at it as 20 divided by 5 x 4 so its 1. Any mathematicians here can confirm?
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link
[–]RedTenet9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The problem is wolfram alpha is a computer so it requires certain input to make the equation look correct.
When you divide something by another thing you basically turn it into a fraction. The computer can not recognise this in the format you put it in.
When using fractions, the statements on the top and bottom are in invisible brackets. As you do brackets first, the bottom statement will be 5x4. This makes the fraction 20/(5x4) - the answer is 1.
[–]DuncanKeef3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This guy gets it.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Fagl40 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You obviously had a really bad teacher, that rule simply does not exists
[–]RedTenet0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If there are no brackets then you take the first statement which is 5(2x2).
[–]DuncanKeef5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
It's the format causing the confusion. Is the 5 "hugging" the parenthesis or not?!?! I think yes, only because there is no * between the 5 and (.
So, 1. 20/5(2 * 2) --- work to get rid of parenthesis 2. 20/5(4) --- work to get rid of parenthesis 3. 20/20 OR 20/(20) === 1
I think the correct answer is 1.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
There is no ambiguity in 20 /5 * (2 * 2). The answer is 16 every time. You could type that into an old apple ii and it would give you the same answer.
Interesting how you added an extra "*" in there between the 5 and the parenthetical -- meaning BTW that you modified the formula (without admitting to doing so, nor likely comprehending the implications of it).
In fact in your hypothetical "apple ii" scenario, you would HAVE had to modify it in that manner, because otherwise the formula would have returned a "syntax error," and no "answer" to the formula at all (apple II machines were not forgiving in that regard, their syntax parsing was very rudimentary & rigid).
You're also dishonest in another way... absent the extra "*" you would actually have had to modify the formula further -- eliminating the (entirely pointless to your interpretation) parentheses as you keyed it in -- because again, if you didn't do so, the formula (as originally presented) would be rejected and only produce another "error."
Herein lies the crux of the matter...
You (like the entire "common core" approach) are not being honest about what is being (even hypothetically) done here... AND you are also not actually using your brain to "understand" the formula at hand (which again is a nonsensical, poorly formulated piece of crap -- no one remotely competent would have created it in that form, it's an "inanity").
Instead what you are doing is -- essentially MINDLESSLY in terms of higher thought -- keying it into a machine (or again, at least trying to, thoughtlessly "tweaking" it to get around the syntax errors) and then allowing the machine to "parse, interpret, and shit out an 'answer' "...
Which 'answer' you then regard as authoritative and beyond question, because it passed through the 'holy' machine (and from your dull-minded incompetent perspective, THE machine cannot make any errors, nor can you honestly represent how you MODIFIED the formula to even get it to "work" when keying it in).
The concept of GIGO is entirely lost on you (and common core) -- in no small part because your comprehension of what you are doing is so superficial, and careless (arguably even "mindless").
I have two simple questions for you -- oh person with the highly vaunted title of "engineer" (LOL, gawd I hope you're just bullshitting on that*).
WTF are those parentheses even doing in that original equation? (What purpose do they serve? Why were they put there?)
Assuming your NOT just BS'ing us regarding being an "engineer" then please to give us all a list of products (if any) that have you actually worked on as an "engineer" in any capacity. (My reason for asking this is that I simply wish to entirely AVOID being anywhere near them, because rather obviously they would be unreliable and most likely downright dangerous if you -- and/or other "engineers" of your caliber {and I presume they would be*} -- played any role in their creation.)
* Not that it would be all that surprising if you weren't BSing us -- the world is alas, full of shitty & incompetent "engineers" -- just as it is full of shitty & incompetent people in every other trade & profession (engineers are no exception in that, nor any other, regard).
BTW: the only people who hate common core are people who are bad at math. I'm an engineer and I love common core as it teaches math the way I was thought math
LOL, so now your being an "engineer" also makes you an authority on everything else, including the motives and intelligence of ALL other people.
Doubtless "Common Core" also teaches English in a similarly shoddy manner to the way you were "thought" it and the way you were "though" math (hence the multiple mistakes in not only your "math" but in your spelling and punctuation within your brief comment).
And thus the relevance of the * note above.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link
I wasn't dishonest at all.
Yes, junior... you were.
Notice the computer doesn't give a syntax error when you type: 20 / 5 * (2 * 2)
And when you make that MODIFICATION then the parentheses are entirely unnecessary... so why are they there?
If you key in the equation EXACTLY as it was presented, it does create the syntax error, period.
as there is no ambuguity to the formula, just like there is no ambiguity to 20 / 5 (2 * 2)
Yes, there IS ambiguity. Again, WTF are the parentheses doing there if the equation is to be interpreted in the form that you are (mindlessly) doing it.
You haven't engaged your brain -- you are simply serving as a "slave" to the machine.
Awww, you're butthurt that I have an advanced understanding of math. Sorry, not sorry.
LOL, quite the opposite... you have (at best) a bullshit "credential" without the actual understanding that ostensibly comes along with it.
1) There are not required but having them there doesn't change anything.
As I noted -- perfect demonstration of how "mindless" your approach is -- the parentheses DO change it... the reason they were put there makes sense only in a different interpretation than the one you have defaulted to (again "mindlessly" -- in a "rote" fashion).
Math is a language and just like English or C++.
Indeed, it is, and the way you were "thought" it... well you may have gotten a passing grade (and a credential) from equally ignorant "teachers" -- but in reality you failed to master either.
We're good at math.
Except in your case... you're not. (Just as you're not "good" at English either.)
That is because the way common core teaches children allows them to progress much quicker and answer more advanced problems that their parents did at the same age.
Drink that Kool-Aid.
Also... good luck with little Johnny when he comes home and tells you he wants to "transition" and for you to start calling him "Janey" instead.
[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
The correct answer is 16 dude.
You have no idea what the correct answer is, because you didn't even attempt to comprehend the question.
All you did was perform a (mindless) "rote" calculation on a modified version of what you were presented.
Get more triggered.
IF you actually are an "engineer" you're a shitty one.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]keltsbeard-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It is multiplication. Do parentheses first, then the multiplication of that result and 5...then the division of that and the 20. It does follow PEMDAS.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]keltsbeard-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Then it's changed from how I was taught it. It was drilled into my head that you did every instance of the 'letter' you were on, on order.
[–]Griever1141 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
In early days of computer lingo, that was referred to as GIGO.
Garbage In therefore Garbage Out. Why garbage, because someone programed the computer wrong in the first place.
By ignoring the preset rules, you can program a computer to provide other numerous results as well for the exact same equation, but if everyone did that, then math is no longer a legit science.
Enter that equation as is in a financial calculator and the answer is = 1. If not return it for a refund given that is defective.
In my opinion it was programed wrong hence why the wrong answer. The computer is incorrectly programmed to ignore the parenthesis first but instead doing division.
I do agree that parentheses would make the equation clear (especially for this age group), but at the same token, it is not necessary if one knows and obeys the rules. Rules that have existed for eons.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pope_Lucious3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
But multiplication is division, and subtraction is addition.
Adding -2 is the same as subtracting 2
Dividing by 4 is the same as multiplying by (1/4)
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pope_Lucious0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
I'm not doubting you necessarily but that wasn't how I was taught.
[–]Pope_Lucious-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Graduated HS in 2007
[–]Pope_Lucious1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Nah I don't think so. Multiplication/division should have the same priority, just like addition/subtraction should as well. They are inverse operations of each other, it makes no rational sense to have one prioritized over the other.
Oy Vey!
[–]mentalidade_logica6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Leave it up to the feminist controlled education system to bring chaos to something as pure and true as math.
They are even contesting Newton's Laws, because, you guess it - "it's oppressive".
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
because women are outside of the patriarchal system they have the opportunity to fuck with the system.
Where to start, really? How do you survive as a student, with this perpetual brainwashing bombardment?
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Oxford, well that explains it. Recently they changed their dictionary to include additional words to describe gender as if there were more than two genders. Marxism crap indeed!
[–]mentalidade_logica4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link
Step 1 Parenthesis
Step 2 Multiplication.
Step 3 Division.
Step 4 Addition.
Step 4 Subtraction.
Thus 20 / (5x4) = 20 / 20. Answer is 1.
[–]Pope_Lucious11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link
[–]Urishima1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's why in Germany, we are taught 'Punkt vor Strichrechnung', 'point' operators (division is represented as : in Germany, not /) are done prior to 'line' operators (a - is one line, a + is two lines, right?), instead of further differentiating between division, multiplication, etc.
I hope I managed to explain that.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pope_Lucious7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link
Lol get outta here ya pleb. I have 5 semesters of advanced calculus and differential equations under my belt. My point is there is no difference between adding -2 and subtracting 2. There is no difference between dividing by 4 and multiplying by 1/4. It makes no sense to have addition/subtraction on different priority levels as they are inverses of the same process (same with multiplication/division).
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Not sure what you are saying or not, so write it down in a form of an equation that equals zero. Let me test it.
[–]Pope_Lucious2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
X - 2 = X + -2
X/4 = X * (1/4)
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link
It works out. In the 1st equation, the + sign is redundant. It should not exist in that equation at all.
In the 2nd one, the asterisks is also redundant, but not that unusual.
This is an incorrect statement thou, I'm sure you know that. Had you stated that multiplication is the same as division on the other side of an equal equation then you would be correct. Same principle for addition and subtraction.
[–]Pope_Lucious2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
It works out. In the 1st equation, the + sign is redundant. It should not exit in that equation at all.
I was showing how adding a negative known value is equivalent to subtracting the same known value. The "+" is showing you the process of addition, where the "-" of "-2" is showing you the value is negative.
This is an incorrect statement thou, I'm sure you know that. Had you stated that multiplication is the same as division on the other side of an equal equation then you would be correct.
It is vague, and you could easily get incorrect inferences from that statement.
A better way of phrasing would be
"Addition of a negative number is the same as subtracting the same positive number"
"Dividing by a number is equivalent to multiplying by the number's inverse"
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Your fist statement was worded incorrectly, no doubt in my mind. Then I rephrase it and now you corrected it, fair enough.
This is getting too confusing. I need one equation, with both conditions, ending in ''= 0'', to confirm your last comment.
We're talking about order of operations. I can do what you ask, but it wouldn't be evidence of what I said.
(X-2)/4 = (1/4)*(X + (-2))
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pope_Lucious4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Naw, you're just too emotionally invested to reconsider. There is no good rational basis for having inverse processes (addition/subtraction, multiplication/division) be on different priority levels for communicating a mathematical expression. The priority can still be easily controlled with grouping by parenthesis and brackets.
[–]Pope_Lucious3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Dude I have over a decade of experience in aerospace manufacturing. Stop with your pretentious emotional bullshit. You're acting like a woman. You are mathematically wrong.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pope_Lucious3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Apparently you aren't even any good at basic addition/subtraction (and we're talking simple integers here).
OR I worked while in high school and college. Glad we get a chance to see your problem-solving skills in action.
[–]Pope_Lucious1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're such a woman
You are a special kind of knucklehead.
[–]Mini_Bot-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
You actually can't tell if the (2*2) is multiplied with the 20 or the 5. It's a poorly written math operation, and it can go either way depending on how you interpret it.
It's either (20 * 2 * 2)/5 or 20/(5 * 2 * 2). You can't tell based on how it was written. Also PEMDAS doesn't matter when you're only dealing with multiplication and division.
[–]ClonedLiger2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I read it as 20/5....multiplied by (2*2) since you do the perenthsies first, and then the total equation from left to right since it's all division and multiplication.
[–]mentalidade_logica3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Math is always precise providing one follows the rules.
Given the expression 20 / 5 (2 x2),
Step 1 Parenthesis thus (2x2)=4, now we have the expression 20 /5 x 4
Step 2 multiplication thus 5x4=20, now we have 20/20.
Step 3 division, 20/20 = 1.
Unless rules have changed and given the feminism control in the education system, that would not surprise me at all.
[–]mentalidade_logica0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No such thing as feminism when I went to school. Yes I'm ancient, lol. That has been the rule since the invention of math.
It's only lately that these rules are being contested, including the discoveries of Sir Newton, because they are quote, unquote "oppressive'' to women. No, I'm not shitting you (search for it).
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link
Search for:
"Feminist researcher invents new physics to counter "oppression" of Newton."
Also, Dr. Fiamengo and her video of feminists taking over the education system. I trust her, why? Because she used to be a radical feminist herself by her own admission. She is not the only one by any means.
If you want to go a step further (for advance researchers), to find out who is behind all this madness, watch Brother Nathanael on this subject. He was also one of them, the same gang who invented feminism, Marxism. (They start with letter Z).
[–]DWShimoda2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
Indeed.
The irony is that in her "explanation" she actually reveals something quite notable about her agenda, to wit:
“Newtonian physics has separated beings based on their binary and absolute differences,” and “these structures of classification, such as male/female, or living/non-living, are hierarchical and exploitative and thusly part of the apparatus that enables oppression.”
Beyond the fact that Newtonian physics doesn't in fact involve anything regarding "male/female" or "living/non-living"...
It is interesting to see how she acknowledges that "differences" DO in fact exist, and that there are even "absolute differences."
Note also that her entire "argument" -- if you can even call it that -- against their use is that they are "hierarchical" (so?) and "exploitative" (bullshit assertion) and therefore somehow "oppressive" (LOL, translation: she doesn't LIKE what they imply).
She may as well -- literally -- bitch and moan about "gravity" being "oppressive"... as if by merely refusing to accept it she will somehow "magically" be able to fly.
[–]mentalidade_logica2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
bitch and moan about "gravity" being "oppressive"...
She probably looked at her own boobs to came up with that conclusion! Even in math they find a way to be the victims, just amazing. That's what you call an Expert Career-Victim.
[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
She probably looked at her own boobs to came up with that conclusion!
LOL. Her boobs, or the cellulite on her thighs and her overall weight/mass.
Even in math they find a way to be the victims, just amazing. That's what you call an Expert Career-Victim.
Guarantee you the bitch doesn't comprehend the least thing about "Newtonian Physics."
This is her way of "fighting back" against the fact that she FLUNKED her physics classes. Muh Oppreshun!
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
the fact that she FLUNKED her physics classes.
I didn't know that. A perfect example of the Peter Principle. No doubt she will get a very high position.
[–]IAmTheDos0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Letter Z
I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that means Zionism? What does Zionism have to do with it?
Note: I am Jewish, but I've never been a Zionist (Or even fully understood it), so I'm literally just curious.
Note: I am Jewish, but I've never been a Zionist
I agree that they are not synonymous, just like I believe that feminism is not synonymous with women. Obviously, you also see them as two separate entities, my question is how you would describe the difference between them?
so I'm literally just curious.
I suggest you watch videos by Orthodox Jewish (lots of them around); Ben Friedman and that will lead you to other sources. Do your research with an open mind including Christian perspectives, such as the subject of the Farisees from an historical point of view. Do try to avoid Wiki thou, given it is not reliable.
[–]Fagl40 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Rules haven't changed, you are wrong, simple as that
Negative! It is IMPOSSIBLE for a math problem to have TWO CORRECT OUTCOMES, because you see math does not lie, until the feminist controlled education system gets involve that is.
[–]ClonedLiger1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I read it as 20/5....multiplied by (2*2) since you do the perenthsies first, and then the total equation from left to right since it's all division and multiplicationz
[–]mentalidade_logica-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
Enter that equation exactly as you see it in a financial calculator. The end result will be 1 and if not, returned it for a refund given that it is defective.
How long until you understand that you're wrong, stop being delusional
How long are you going to keep pushing for math chaos?
[–]ClonedLiger0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bark544 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So much debate over a problem in a subject that there should be no debate at all.
[–]sellthishistory3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
PEMDA = Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition
20/5(2*2)
20/5*4
20/20
= 1
You don't fuck with math. Math will straight up kill you.
[–]Lord_Trajan8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
No, it's Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication/Division, Addition/Subtraction. Where the fuck did this mob mentality that it's multiplication before division come from?
Where the fuck did this mob mentality that it's multiplication before division come from?
Well, where the fuck did this feminist education controlled mentality that it is possible for a simple problem to have two right answers?
It used to be two genders now they are potentially 7 billion. It used to be one right answer in math, but now they are two. What's next?
[–]Griever114-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
This is what i was taught years ago and THROUGH an ivy league college.
[–]Lord_Trajan1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
What Ivy League did you go to and for what? Take a pic of your diploma with your name covered by your username, then I'll believe ya.
[–]Griever1142 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
No fucking way im putting any proof on the internet. Nice try.
Also, i dont give a fuck if you dont believe me or not.
[–]Lord_Trajan0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
lol, okay, if you put paper over your name people wont know anything, but everyone knows you are just talking out of your ass lmao.
[–]mentalidade_logica0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
You are correct. Your opponent is likely a paid troll and is not the only one here.
Hell, even the pic states the "old way" answer =1. And at that time it was impossible for a problem to have more than one correct answer. Look at the pic, now it's two right answers. Remember when there were only 2 genders, but now there are potentially 7 Billion ones.
Feminist controlled education are destroying math like they destroyed every bloody thing.
[–]freethinker19760 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's how I was taught and it got me trough computer science in college.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Or there can be a purge to reduce math. Idk.
[–]aanarchist2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
they're teaching the children improper math and they're leaving high school with less than a 1st grade education.
[–]934022 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
no wonder i always hated pussy taught classes in school. school got much better once i entered technical college and almost all teachers were male.
[–]eightgaydiamonds2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
POSTMODERN MATH. I thought they would never pull it off.
[–]RunawayGrain1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is what happens when the teacher doesn't understand it either.
[–]Fraccles1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I read this as 20/5 x (2x2) but I see it with the 5 under the 20 (I don't know how to format that in Reddit) so as a fraction the whole problem can be written as (20x(2x2))/5 = 80/5 = 16.
Really this just shows us the weakness of the word processing software. Fractions should be an easily accessible function (or we need more people to use brackets for clarity more) so this ambiguity doesn't happen.
[–]TigPlaze1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
WTF? 16 is correct. The other answer is wrong.
[–]SnapshillBot0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Archived for your convenience
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
[–]blackierobinsun30 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
the answer should be 1
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
That's my answer too. Brackets are first, then go left to right.
This is the reason people use layers of brackets. It removes any kind of confusion. (20/5)(2x2), or 20/(5(2x2)).
Brackets for everything! LISP is the best programming language!
[–]8017351 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree about the brackets, but cannot say anything about LISP as it's an inferior language to the one I use. ]=)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Common core should start teaching polish notation too since it is more computer friendly. Put the operation first them the values.
(x 2 2) = 4
Multiply (2,2) = 4
[–]Drezzzire2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yup PEMDAS. It's poorly written but I don't know how it could be 1 unless they rules have changed since I went to school.
[–]emjaytheomachy1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My answer too. Graduated in 2002.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Oder of operations. This is bullshit. Both are not right.
[–]reptilianoverlord940 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
From what I learnt in school multiplication comes before division. I bet some of the older guys were taught differently.
[–]HumanBeingOfEarth-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Parenthesis 2x2 is 4 times 5 is 20, 20/20 is 1
It could only be 16 if 20/5 was also in parenthesis
[–]itzhyde0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I got taught BIDMAS for order @ school, Brackets, Indicies, Division, Multi, add, sub. I have no idea what the theory is behind any of it though because we didn't go into any of that detail.
[–]keltsbeard0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I got taught PEMDAS, back in the early 90's.
[–]Mini_Bot0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I haven't even seen anyone write math like this in college. You just put everything in a fraction so that it's either (20 x 2 x 2)/5 or 20/(5 x 2 x 2). The picture is just a confusing way to write it because you can't tell if the (2 x 2) is in the numerator or denominator.
...it's 20 divided by 20.
[–]mgtow_math0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Jesus fucking christ what a mess. My only hope is that this is a lesson on ambiguities in (poor) mathematical notation... which would probably be over the little fellers' heads anyway.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The division is last. The entire problem is based on division, so it's the final step. You solve both sides first, parenthesis has top priority. The correct answer is 1. How is this even a discussion?
All the parenthesis means is "This comes first". That's it. The presented problem is division, therefore, dividing whole numbers on each side must be achieved. 20 is a whole number, no nothing else is needed. Now the parenthesis, then remainder. Since there is no + or -, and the 5 isn't double parenthesis around (2*2) with an additional division indicator, then it's multiplication.
20 / 5(2*) 20 / 5(4) 20 / 20 =1
20 is a whole number and is absolute. The only way to achieve 16 as a valid answer is to create some sort of fuckery to make 5(2*2)=320. Since there are no lettered variables, good luck with that. This is a math problem I would have had on a quiz in 8th grade.
Common Core is designed to take parents out of education. That's it.
Also, TIL: PEDMA <--- when did this shit start?
[–]Patingham0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
PEMDAS is the order of operations. Parentheses, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction. Where in the ever living fuck is everyone learning multiplication and division have the same priority? The answer is 1 and common core is meant to bring the commoners to the core of stupidity.
[–]Lord_Trajan2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The mnemonics are very misleading, it should really be Parentheses, exponents, multiplication/division, addition/subtraction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
ohh fucking fuck ppl. does common core not even teach PEMDAS anymore??
[–]awalt_mgtow0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The order of operations here isn't the issue. What we are arguing about here is what is the question: (20/5) * (2 * 2) or 20/(5 * 2 * 2). The formatting convention used for the question above is 20/(5 * 2 * 2) which means the answer is 1. The parenthesis are actually redundant: 5(2 * 2) == 5 * 2 * 2 so why use the parenthesis? I agree with others in this thread that this is poorly formed. If the question was written as 20/5 * 2 * 2 I don't think that anyone would have considered that the answer could be 16. In either case, the maths isn't ambiguous and there is only one answer to each question - the question is what is the question?
Also, there is no difference in terms of priority in the use of division or multiplication. 5 * 4 / 6 is always 20/6 no matter what you do first. Remember that you can always re-write this as 5/1 * 4/1 * 1/6. Just my 2 cents worth.
[–]getMansplained0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I love how these common core teachers love to act like they're above "the old way," as if the old way is bad. As a computer engineer, I would love to ask these people to attempt to get around "the old way" with binary logic. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
[–]StealthMister-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It is because it is formatted poorly: (20)(5(2×2))
=(20)(5(4))
=(20)(20)
=1
(20)(5)(2×2)
=(20)(5)(4)
=(4)×(4)
=16
Thats the problem... shitty formatting.
[–]aidenSkates-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
The only way that 16 would be the answer is if it looked like this
(20/5) (2 * 2)
But the current format is 20 / 5 (2 * 2), meaning what's inside parenthesis comes first then it would be multiplied by 5 then divided by 20.
Why is she saying both are correct? How did she earn her degree? Can someone please elaborate?
[–]aidenSkates1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Damn it I forgot a logical rule... my bad. Thanks for pointing it out
[–]aidenSkates0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Thank you for explanation. We are living in scary times.
Yes, "scary" or "interesting" times... but also an era (and a faction with an "agenda") that will ultimately prove to be self-defeating; and will thus end up in the "dust bin" of history.
Why?
Because REALITY isn't fooled by -- and doesn't give a shit about -- fallacious (self-delusional) nonsense like this.
As Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls them, these "IYI's -- Intellectual Yet Idiots" are engaged in an array of exercises (cf the quants of the housing bubble era, etc) that are based on any number of false premises and/or a dismissal/denial of reality (i.e. "housing prices always go up" and "people don't default on their mortgages" etc).
Same thing is true of their other delusional beliefs -- the multi-cultural egalitarian denial of "race" and/or "religion" etc -- or the similar denial of the (very real) differences in abilities of human males vs human females; or indeed even the denial that "intelligence" matters...
It is POSSIBLE to legislate and even FORCE the hiring and/or "promotion" of women, and/or other "mentally challenged" individuals (i.e. what used to be called "retarded" individuals) -- but it is NOT possible to actually make them capable of performing the tasks that such jobs require... all you eventually end up with is a lot of "errors" (including some that will be dangerous, probably even fatal).
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]phreshstart26 points27 points28 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (12 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]a17c81a3-2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ferfooktus2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]a17c81a30 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WikiTextBot0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]a17c81a30 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]project_mayhem_21 points22 points23 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]project_mayhem_0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]WikiTextBot2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]project_mayhem_1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]UnPawsed0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]IAmTheDos1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]DWShimoda2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DocHolliday2267 points8 points9 points (39 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ultramegasaurus11 points12 points13 points (37 children) | Copy Link
[–]DocHolliday2264 points5 points6 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]RedTenet1 point2 points3 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Fagl40 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]RedTenet-1 points0 points1 point (8 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]RedTenet0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]mentalidade_logica0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]keltsbeard1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Griever1140 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica0 points1 point2 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aredon866 points7 points8 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aredon864 points5 points6 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aredon863 points4 points5 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica0 points1 point2 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aredon863 points4 points5 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]HelperBot_0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WikiTextBot0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]mentalidade_logica3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]mentalidade_logica2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]secant1287 points8 points9 points (44 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (28 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]RedTenet9 points10 points11 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]DuncanKeef3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]Fagl40 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RedTenet0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DuncanKeef5 points6 points7 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (12 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] (11 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (9 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]keltsbeard-1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]keltsbeard-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Griever1141 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]mentalidade_logica2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (13 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]Pope_Lucious3 points4 points5 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (11 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]Pope_Lucious0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (9 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]Pope_Lucious-1 points0 points1 point (8 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]Pope_Lucious1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica6 points7 points8 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica4 points5 points6 points (53 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pope_Lucious11 points12 points13 points (30 children) | Copy Link
[–]Urishima1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (28 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]Pope_Lucious7 points8 points9 points (27 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pope_Lucious2 points3 points4 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pope_Lucious2 points3 points4 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pope_Lucious1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (14 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]Pope_Lucious4 points5 points6 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (12 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]Pope_Lucious3 points4 points5 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (10 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]Pope_Lucious3 points4 points5 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pope_Lucious1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Urishima1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mini_Bot-1 points0 points1 point (21 children) | Copy Link
[–]ClonedLiger2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica3 points4 points5 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]mentalidade_logica0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]mentalidade_logica2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]IAmTheDos0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Fagl40 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ClonedLiger1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica-1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Fagl40 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ClonedLiger0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ClonedLiger0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bark544 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sellthishistory3 points4 points5 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lord_Trajan8 points9 points10 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Griever114-1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lord_Trajan1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Griever1142 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lord_Trajan0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mentalidade_logica0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]freethinker19760 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]aanarchist2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]934022 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]eightgaydiamonds2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]RunawayGrain1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Fraccles1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TigPlaze1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SnapshillBot0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]blackierobinsun30 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]8017351 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Drezzzire2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]emjaytheomachy1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]reptilianoverlord940 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HumanBeingOfEarth-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]itzhyde0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]keltsbeard0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mini_Bot0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mgtow_math0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Patingham0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lord_Trajan2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]awalt_mgtow0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]getMansplained0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]StealthMister-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Griever1141 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]aidenSkates-1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]aidenSkates1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]aidenSkates0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link