116

# Math problems ...

• 9
The fuck
• 33
13 is closet to 10
• 8
@thevariableman if you go in that path, levenshtein distance to 10 is equal for all the options
• 0
Gah my eyes
• 4
So much stupidity in one tweet omg.
• 10
16 is the correct answer, because 0x10 = 16
• 14
@monr0e except it is 2 + (4 × 2) = 2 + 8 = 10...
• 2
@monr0e how did you get times 2?
• 3
@monr0e Except that you multiply twice in your first example, so no.

The correct answer is 10.
• 2
@monr0e I'm sorry but wouldn't that first one be:

2 * 4 = 8, + 2 = 10
• 5
@thevariableman 10? I got the cat in the toaster? Instructions insufficient. Throwing exception.

This worries me. I don’t have a cat.
• 9
Everything is clear with postfix notation

2 2 4 * +
• 1
@aquacash5
Ur true computer scientist !
I was abt to comment the post fix ,then saw this
• 0
That guy is French and did it ironically. Or at least i hope so otherwise I'm ashamed to be French
• 0
Maybe they meant (2+2)*4?
• 2
x = -1/4
• 2
If you apply requirement directly this will happen, you need to think about logically. I'm going forward this to my manager. ðŸ˜‰
• 5
Shit, I have embarrassed myself. I'm leaving forever now
• 0
why I read it 2 x (4 + 2) at a glance
• 0
@g-m-f this
• 0
@aquacash5 postfix is wrong. Please use prefix (polish) notation.

+ 2 * 2 4
• 1
@peonicles
His postfix expression is right!
Check out properly
2 2 4 * +

Converting to infix again back u get

2 2*4 +
2 + 2 * 4 ==> same as the given question
• 1
@Nawap the point was that prefix is better than postfix, not that the expression was wrong
• 1
@host127001
I always read that calculator uses postfix to evaluate!
How do u tell prefix better than postfix!?
• 0
2 + 2 = 4 - 1 = 3 Quick Math
• 1
Guys... It' 16, because if we consider that the sum of all numbers is -1/12 and then...
• 1
@Nawap