Answer is 8 jhoor!!!

blank:


I got 4 as well. When there is no multiplication how can he open the bracket? If that is so then he should have opened it from the beginning. He can't just be selective. And here i was thinking that he studied maths.

He schooled in France

femi4:
That line is wrong
1-0+3 = 1+3 and not 1-+3

Proof:
1-0+3 can be simplify as (1-0)+3 OR 1(-0+3)

Hence, 1+3 = 1(+3-0) =4

Just like someone said, this is fishy.

In solving, 1-0+3, apply bodmas
Addition first, Add 0 to 3 first which will give you 3
Subtraction second, 1-3 which will give you -2

Regarding your proof,
If 1-0+3 can be simplify as (1-0)+3 OR 1(-0+3) as you claimed, then it means both cases should the same answer
1st case
(1-0)+3
(1)+3
1+3
4

Second case
1(-0+3)
1(+3-0)
1(3)
3

Both didn't produce the same answer!

blank:


I got 4 as well. When there is no multiplication how can he open the bracket? If that is so then he should have opened it from the beginning. He can't just be selective. And here i was thinking that he studied maths.

Exactly what I suggested

funkyjms:


Just like someone said, this is fishy.

In solving, 1-0+3, apply bodmas
Addition first, Add 0 to 3 first which will give you 3
Subtraction second, 1-3 which will give you -2

Regarding your proof,
If 1-0+3 can be simplify as (1-0)+3 OR 1(-0+3) as you claimed, then it means both cases should the same answer
1st case
(1-0)+3
(1)+3
1+3
4

Second case
1(-0+3)
1(+3-0)
1(3)
3

Both didn't produce the same answer!

oops, you are right! The second case is actually 1*3 and not 1+3

Case closed, Final answer is 4

0

LOUIS6:
This ur Answers shows you skul in France.... I heard dat dis is how dey get their answers over there in France

Here in Russia, we use head and calculator. lol.

The answer is +2

funkyjms:


For those that got -2 and 4, the difference in answer stems from the bolded.
Should the bracket be expanded with minus or should the (2-2) be simplified to the to lowest form before opening the bracket like this

2- [1 - (1 - [2 - 3] - 2) + 3]
2- [1- (1- [-1] -2) +3]
2- [1- (1--1-2) +3]
2- [1- (1+1-2) +3]
2- [1- (2-2) +3]
2- [1- (0) +3]
2- [1-0 +3]
2- [1-+3]
2- [1-3]
2- [-2]
2--2
2+2
4

My verdict: First, I feel it's always advisable to simplify whatever inside a bracket to the simplest form before opening the bracket to make it easy. Second, I feel (2-2) should be simplified to the lowest form before opening the bracket. Why?
Even the OP, in the first/second step simplified the [2-3] to the lowest form before opening the bracket.

Now i c whr d confusion is coming frm.
1-0+3=4. How?
This is because 0 is nothing. There is nothing like +ve or -ve zero. Zero is nothing and can b seen as none existed.

Or to make it clearer,lets rearrange d numbers. For example, 2+6=6+2=8
-2+9=9-2=7
0-3=-3+0=-3(take note)
Therefore,
1-0+3=1+3-0=4-0=4
Hope its clear nw. Thanks

+1

A friend got -2. Op, Wetin be the answer jor.

Icebeatz where are you?

The answer is 3

funkyjms:


Just like someone said, this is fishy.

In solving, 1-0+3, apply bodmas
Addition first, Add 0 to 3 first which will give you 3
Subtraction second, 1-3 which will give you -2

Regarding your proof,
If 1-0+3 can be simplify as (1-0)+3 OR 1(-0+3) as you claimed, then it means both cases should the same answer
1st case
(1-0)+3
(1)+3
1+3
4

Second case
1(-0+3)
1(+3-0)
1(3)
3

Both didn't produce the same answer!

did u understand mathematics @all.coz u second is nt a mathematical solution @ all

This is the answer

This is simple na, the answer is +4

chai, see people weh sabi maths na. ayam jealous

any arithmetic law, either basic or advance Will give you answer as +4.

Bleep maths I hate it wit passion

The answer is 4

Gptech:

Now i c whr d confusion is coming frm.
1-0+3=4. How?
This is because 0 is nothing. There is nothing like +ve or -ve zero. Zero is nothing and can b seen as none existed.

Or to make it clearer,lets rearrange d numbers. For example, 2+6=6+2=8
-2+9=9-2=7
0-3=-3+0=-3(take note)
Therefore,
1-0+3=1+3-0=4-0=4
Hope its clear nw. Thanks

So indirectly, what you're saying is that where I got this 2- [1-+3], the minus sign should have disappear with the zero?
Clear my doubt on this

Gptech:

This is because 0 is nothing. There is nothing like +ve or -ve zero. Zero is nothing and can b seen as none existed

It is because of this thought that I left out the zero but left behind the negative sign

Germeeu:
did u understand mathematics @all.coz u second is nt a mathematical solution @ all

Bro, I'm learning!

But please, how is it not?

icebeatz:
2 - [1 - (1 - [2 - 3] - 2) + 3]

I POSTED THIS MATHS QUESTION ON MY FACEBOOK GROUP AND OUT OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT COMMENTED, ONLY ONE PERSON GOT IT RIGHT!!

NOW, I AM BRINGING IT TO NAIRALAND.

[2-3]=-1 so yu have
(1--1-2) which equal 0, so u have
[1-0+3] which equal -2,(-0+3 is -2, cos - * + is -) and lastly yu have
2--2 which equal 4

We should all know dat every number has a sign,either negative or positive. When we rearrange numbers,we move d numbers with their signs along with them. For example,

5-2+8-9=5+8-2-9=13-11=2

1-0+3 is nt equal to 1-3. There is no way (-) dat belongs to 0,can b given to +3.
For those that says 1-0+3=1-+3,when u take out d zero,u take out d sign along with it. Therefore, 1-0+3=1+3=4 (when we take out d zero,we take out d minus sign along with it)

The answer is -2

hyfr :
icebeatz see your life? [1-(2-2)+3] this is pure bodmas, the negative sign in front of the bracket doesn't change anytin inside it, plus the brackets are solved first, the answer is 4.. Go ask a prof.. Its meant to be: 2-[1-(2-2)+3]. 2-[1-(0)+3]= 2-[1-+3]= 2-[-2]=4 brb

no no no no u are wrong........................

when there is a sign in front of a bracket,


u have no option than to expand it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.nairaland.com/2033932/record-these-studios#28686663

I am a music producer, check put the link above to see my studios and please like and share the pictures if you can.

Follow me on nairaland and I follow back.

Shoot me an email on icevillebeatz@gmail.com and I reply within 24 hours

The answer is -2
100% sure

funkyjms:


So indirectly, what you're saying is that where I got this 2- [1-+3], the minus sign should have disappear with the zero?
Clear my doubt on this




It is because of this thought that I left out the zero but left behind the negative sign

Yes boss,take this example
5+0-2=5-2=3
We take out the +0. It is impossible to take out a number without taking its sign along with it. A number and its sign are inseperable. Trying to take out a number without its sign is like taking out Abuja from Nigeria.

I see no reason why you guyz keep arguing ova unnecessary thing. Av u all forgotten d'simple rule of bodmas? Wheneva you are solving a multiple bracket u start frm d innermost bracket. U dnt apply ur own rule 2 maths u follow d set rules
The answer is -2

Use bodmas
Ans is 4

simdam500:

2 - [1 - (1 - [2 - 3] - 2) + 3]
2 - [1 - (1 - [-1] - 2) + 3]
2 - [1 - (1 + 1 - 2) + 3]
2 - [1 - (2 - 2) + 3]
*******************
2 - [1 - 2 + 2 + 3]
2 - [4]
-2


QED.

mention me

[size=24pt]
2 - [1 - (2 - 2) + 3]
this is where the confusion came in...
whenever u have a plus or minus sign in front of any bracket. u have no option than to expand......

bodmas, solving the brackets first won't work
2 - [1 - (2 + 2) + 3]

so going your own way will be

2 - [1 - (2 + 2) + 3]
2 - [1 - (0) + 3]
2 - [1 + 3]
2-4
-2

QED QED
QED QED

[/size]

icebeatz:
THE ANSWER IS -2

2 - [1 - (1 - [2 - 3] - 2) + 3]
2 - [1 - (1 - [-1] - 2) + 3]
2 - [1 - (1 + 1 - 2) + 3]
2 - [1 - (2 - 2) + 3]
2 - [1 - 2 + 2 + 3]
2 - [4]
-2

Even the OP is an international olodo

2 - [1 - (1 - [2 - 3] - 2) + 3]
2 - [1 - (1 - [-1] - 2) + 3]
2 - [1 - (1 + 1 - 2) + 3]
2 - [1 - (2 - 2) + 3]
2 - [1 - 0 + 3]
2 - [-2]
4