...Not sure what class I was when I first heard the word BODMAS but I am very sure it was in primary school. More so, because I dreaded (or even hated) going to school when I was little, I am also sure I missed the introductory class on BODMAS due to either being ill or feigning illness. I don’t know which of my teachers or friends mentioned the full meaning of the acronym, but what I knew it as was;
[center]Brackets, Of, Division, Multiplication, Addition and Subtraction
[/center]
It was when BODMAS was trending on the internet, only as recent as September 2016, years after leaving primary school, that I realised I have been talking wrong about the meaning of the acronym. See below;
[center]Brackets, Order, Division, Multiplication, Addition and Subtraction
[/center]
I am also certain I wasn’t the only one who had this misconception of the acronym. God bless our teachers sha.
However, the essence of this article is not in whether the ‘O’ stood for ‘Order’ and not ‘Of’ but to address an observed problem that a lot of persons (young, old, elderly) do not understand how this foundational process works. I had my struggles in time past but it appears lot of persons display their misunderstanding of the term with so much confidence that the popular (wrong) response rather than the correct answer is accepted as right to a supposedly simple math problem.

And I ask myself, who is really to blame for this grave misunderstanding. Should we blame our primary school teachers who, themselves, misunderstood the BODMAS process and explained it to us to their own understanding? Or should we blame pupils who didn’t pay attention when the correct thing was taught or who saw teachers as gods and took everything they were taught hook, line and sinker? Or should we blame parents and guardians who did not understand the process or forgot the process and could not put their children through on the right? Whose fault is it?

It may sound funny but it is actually a very serious matter. By fire and by force, we must break out of these strongholds for the sake of our kids and wards.

Dear readers, do take a minute to answer the question below. Also share friends and colleagues to attempt. On the next series, I will also share the right BODMAS process and do share with everyone so that we can all understand.

See let me tell you, that OF seems to be a major benchmark for my succes in maths. As a self taught math freak, i appreciate that "O" for OF seriously...

This is what i mean:


x% of 20g = 58

x% order 20g = 58

what does the second equation even mean?

the importance of that OF in word problem is second to non don't tamper.

next time make your point and round up early ....

26

chineduemmao:
See let me tell you, that OF seems to be a major benchmark for my succes in maths. As a self taught math freak, i appreciate that "O" for OF seriously...

This is what i mean:


x% of 20g = 58

x% order 20g = 58

what does the second equation even mean?

the importance of that OF in word problem is second to non don't tamper.

Orders refers to exponentials. And it makes sense when working with equations that contain exponentials. Using 'Of' is incorrect but it will always work for just normal algebraic equations.

Ur "Geniuses Only" puzzle:

2+3+3×11 = 5 + 33 = 38

Right or wrong?

26

BODMAS is simply an acronym and a aid to memory to school children. "Order" can be conveniently debated to mean "of". So you see, our primary school teachers did not deceive us.
pls, for more info on this subject matter, I would love you to judiciously read up this thread especially Liondeleo input.

BODMAS is simply an acronym and a aid to memory to school children. "Order" can be conveniently debated to mean "of". So you see, our primary school teachers did not deceive us.
pls, for more info on this subject matter, I would love you to judiciously read up this thread especially Liondeleo input.
https://www.nairaland.com/3786969/maths-teachers-must-apologise-us

ismokeweed:

Orders refers to exponentials. And it makes sense when working with equations that contain exponentials. Using 'Of' is incorrect but it will always work for just normal algebraic equations.

any person learning exponentials is old enough to accomodate both "of" and "order" and make use of either one at anytime but confusing a jss3 student still trying to grip pure math concept is clearly wrong. I used foreign textbooks during my learning days they used "of" also.

chineduemmao:
any person learning exponentials is old enough to accomodate both "of" and "order" and make use of either one at anytime but confusing a jss3 student still trying to grip pure math concept is clearly wrong. I used foreign textbooks during my learning days they used "of" also.

They're telling you the right thing now, you're still clinging to the incorrect. If I give an equation that contains exponentials, you will not be able to solve it.
American schools used the acronym PEMDAS. This is Parentheses, exponentials, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction.

ismokeweed:

Orders refers to exponentials. And it makes sense when working with equations that contain exponentials. Using 'Of' is incorrect but it will always work for just normal algebraic equations.

You are wrong. Exponentials can be break down into multiplication but "of" is an English word

2³ is same as 2*2*2

Furthermore, based on the syllabus used then, most problems given to solve did not involved polynomials, exponential.

femi4:
You are wrong. Exponentials can be break down into multiplication but "of" is an English word

2³ is same as 2*2*2

Furthermore, based on the syllabus used then, most problems given to solve did not involved polynomials, exponential.

You're reiterating the point I made that it could work for simple algebraic equations but it's not mathematically correct. I studied mathematics for my bachelor's degree and I assure there, there are equations and there are equations.
Btw... How about 2^1/2? Since you say all exponentials can be broken into multiplication, please break this. When you're done, I'll drop another for you to break.

Sugar97:
Ur "Geniuses Only" puzzle:
2+3+3×11 = 5 + 33 = 38
Right or wrong?

Wrong 88

COdeGenesis:

Wrong
88

Awwn...really?

Pls what did I miss?

ismokeweed:

They're telling you the right thing now, you're still clinging to the incorrect. If I give an equation that contains exponentials, you will not be able to solve it.
American schools used the acronym PEMDAS. This is Parentheses, exponentials, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction.

BODMAS is not incorrect b/c its not a formular. Most people even neglet the BODMAS sequence yet they still arrive at the correct answer why because they ve understood what they are doing beyond their teachers common explanation. I can never fail any exponential problem why because i've learnt it beyond the primary. My point is BODMAS is easier to teach than PEDMAS and others.

ismokeweed:

You're reiterating the point I made that it could work for simple algebraic equations but it's not mathematically correct. I studied mathematics for my bachelor's degree and I assure there, there are equations and there are equations.
Btw... How about 2^1/2? Since you say all exponentials can be broken into multiplication, please break this. When you're done, I'll drop another for you to break.

when i was in primary 2/3 my teacher listed the moon as one of the luminous objects, in jss 3 i was told it wasnt. The reason was explained and i understood it do u think i would hav understand it in primary 2? u see its not about us it about the younger minds.

chineduemmao:
when i was in primary 2/3 my teacher listed the moon as one of the luminous objects, in jss 3 i was told it wasnt. The reason was explained and i understood it do u think i would hav understand it in primary 2? u see its not about us it about the younger minds.

There are lots of wrong things we've been taught in schools. We only get to know the correct thing as we progress in life. For example, momentum P in physics is given as P=mv when it's actually P=(mv)/√1-v²/c²
Why I fault the teachers nevertheless on that BODMAS issue is the fact that they never made attempts to correct that error in later classes. We all finished secondary school without knowing what BODMAS actually means which I think is bad.

chineduemmao:
when i was in primary 2/3 my teacher listed the moon as one of the luminous objects, in jss 3 i was told it wasnt. The reason was explained and i understood it do u think i would hav understand it in primary 2? u see its not about us it about the younger minds.

I'm trying to fathom your argument. Something not-exactly-correct is taught in primary school because the alternate is above their syllabus. We're not in primary school here.
In primary school, 2 - 4, we'll say it cannot go. And it was ok then. Then we weren't taught negative numbers. Also, square root of 5, cannot go. Then we weren't taught surds and complex numbers.
But at the level we are, the accurate order of solving equations is brackets or parentheses first, then order or exponentials next. I won't say our primary school teachers were wrong. It was sufficient for us at that level but we are no longer there.
https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=bodmas&oq=bodmas&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j0l2.2371j0j4&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Sugar97:

Awwn...really?
Pls what did I miss?

You didn't miss anything. The guy who quoted you is wrong.

chineduemmao:
BODMAS is not incorrect b/c its not a formular. Most people even neglet the BODMAS sequence yet they still arrive at the correct answer why because they ve understood what they are doing beyond their teachers common explanation. I can never fail any exponential problem why because i've learnt it beyond the primary. My point is BODMAS is easier to teach than PEDMAS and others.

I never said BODMAS is incorrect. It is same as PEMDAS just using different names. It represents order of mathematical operations. If you can't fail any exponential equation, doesn't mean we shouldn't tell the right thing to others who are unsure. Mathematics just like every other science evolves.

answer to the puzzle is 18

88

It's 38

ismokeweed:

I'm trying to fathom your argument. Something not-exactly-correct is taught in primary school because the alternate is above their syllabus. We're not in primary school here.
In primary school, 2 - 4, we'll say it cannot go. And it was ok then. Then we weren't taught negative numbers. Also, square root of 5, cannot go. Then we weren't taught surds and complex numbers.
But at the level we are, the accurate order of solving equations is brackets or parentheses first, then order or exponentials next. I won't say our primary school teachers were wrong. It was sufficient for us at that level but we are no longer there.
https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=bodmas&oq=bodmas&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j0l2.2371j0j4&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

i think we've squared up here am only for the younger ones and not me. i can pick and drop anything

ismokeweed:

You're reiterating the point I made that it could work for simple algebraic equations but it's not mathematically correct. I studied mathematics for my bachelor's degree and I assure there, there are equations and there are equations.
Btw... How about 2^1/2? Since you say all exponentials can be broken into multiplication, please break this. When you're done, I'll drop another for you to break.

Stop reading halfway. Bodmas was taught in pry school and early jss where the syllabus covered problems solving involving x to the power of y. Where y is not a fraction. Mr Maths teacher...pele

sureteeboy:

There are lots of wrong things we've been taught in schools. We only get to know the correct thing as we progress in life. For example, momentum P in physics is given as P=mv when it's actually P=(mv)/√1-v²/c²
Why I fault the teachers nevertheless on that BODMAS issue is the fact that they never made attempts to correct that error in later classes. We all finished secondary school without knowing what BODMAS actually means which I think is bad.

in ss math syllable it doesnt come, not teachers fault in ss fmath syllable, it came up... did u study fmaths in ss?

chineduemmao:
in ss math syllable it doesnt come, not teachers fault in ss fmath syllable, it came up... did u study fmaths in ss?

I didn't study further maths. I just believe it should have appeared in the normal mathematics syllabus

Xsem:
26

u are kworect

[quote author=teewhizzy4real post=62307463] u are kworect[o/quote]
My price or reward?

sureteeboy:

I didn't study further maths. I just believe it should have appeared in the normal mathematics syllabus

no serious need for it so it didnt come up... but those engineering students would learn it eventually.

the answer to d puzzle is 16