Grade school math problem confuses people but the answer is actually easy - can you solve it in 30 seconds?
The equation, shared by user @BholanathDutta on X, appears simple enough for grade school students - but users were left with different answers.
The problem reads: 4 - (4 ÷ 4) x 2 = ?
Can you solve the problem within 30 seconds?
At first glance, it looks like basic arithmetic that a typical middle schooler could solve.
Yet users commented conflicting answers, causing a debate.
The majority of respondents confidently answered 2, while others wrote that they believed the correct answer to be -2.
The confusion stems from a simple math rule - the order of operations.
The acronym PEMDAS (Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication and Division, Addition and Subtraction) determines which calculations to perform first in math equations.
It's important to break down the problem step by step.
4 - (4 ÷ 4) x 2 = ?
First, solve what's inside the parentheses: 4 ÷ 4 = 1
This gives us: 4 - 1 x 2
Next, perform the multiplication: 1 x 2 = 2
Finally, subtract: 4 - 2 = 2
The correct answer is 2.
Those who arrived at -2 likely made the mistake of working from left to right without following the proper order of operations.
Others could have calculated: 4 - 4 = 0, then 0 ÷ 4 = 0, then 0 x 2 = 0, giving them an incorrect final answer.
This type of math puzzle regularly goes viral on social media platforms.
Last week, @BholanathDutta shared another math riddle with followers, asking 'Can you solve this #math' alongside an image decorated with colorful flowers.
The post shows a calculation that looks simple: 500 + 450 ÷ 5.
The post has now been viewed more than 3,000 times, with dozens of commenters sharing their answers.
But not everyone agrees on the solution.
The overwhelming majority of respondents believe the answer is 590, with many users showing their working to prove their point.
One user methodically explained their approach.
They wrote: '500 + 450 ÷ 5 = ? 450 ÷ 5 = 90, 500 + 90 = 590.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Air India CEO says pilots ‘passed' tests as criticism mounts over probe report
The preliminary investigation report on last month's Air India crash found no mechanical or maintenance issue with the aircraft, the company's chief executive said. In an internal memo, Campbell Wilson said the probe into the Boeing Dreamliner crash in Ahmedabad, which killed 260 people, was "far from over". He added the pilots had 'passed' all pre-flight checks amid allegations that the disaster was caused by human error. The report found "no mechanical or maintenance issues with the aircraft or engines and that all mandatory maintenance tasks had been completed," Mr Wilson said. "There was no issue with the quality of fuel and no abnormality with the take-off roll.' The report released by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau a month after the 12 June crash found that three seconds after taking off, the plane's fuel switches almost simultaneously flipped from run to cutoff, starving the engines. The London-bound Dreamliner immediately began to lose thrust and sink. According to the report, one pilot could be heard on the cockpit voice recorder asking the other why he had cut off the fuel. "The other pilot responded that he did not do so," it said. It did not identify which remarks were made by the flight's captain and which by the first officer, nor which pilot transmitted "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" just before the crash. At the crash site, both fuel switches were found in the 'run' position and the report noted that there had been indications of the engines relighting before the low-altitude crash. Rejecting allegations of pilot error causing the crash, the Air India chief said that they both had "passed their pre-flight breathalyser and there were no observations pertaining to their medical status". The aircraft was piloted by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and assisted by First Officer Clive Kundar. Both were experienced jet pilots with nearly 19,000 flying hours between them, including more than 9,000 on Boeing 787. The Airline Pilots' Association of India (ALPA-India), representing Indian pilots at the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations, Montreal, also rejected the presumption of pilot error and called for a "fair, fact-based inquiry". "The pilots' body must now be made part of the probe, at least as observers," ALPA India president Sam Thomas told Reuters. American aviation safety expert John Cox said a pilot would not be able to accidentally move the fuel switches feeding the engines. "You can't bump them and they move," he said. ALPA India, in a letter posted on X, said the preliminary investigation report referred to a 2018 FAA advisory "concerning the fuel control switch gates, which indicates a potential equipment malfunction". The Indian Commercial Pilots' Association said the ill-fated flight's pilots "should not be vilified based on conjecture", adding that the crew "acted in line with their training and responsibilities under challenging conditions". "To casually suggest pilot suicide without verified evidence is a gross violation of ethical reporting and a disservice to the dignity of the profession," it said in a statement. "Let us be unequivocally clear,' it added, 'there is absolutely no basis for such a claim at this stage and invoking such a serious allegation based on incomplete or preliminary information is not only irresponsible – it's deeply insensitive to the individuals and families involved." Relatives of the crash victims criticised the preliminary report as a "cover up" as they hoped for more answers from the investigators. A cousin of sisters Dhir and Heer Baxi, who were flying home to London when they died in the crash, said they were not satisfied with the report, The Guardian reported. Ishan Baxi said they were "still hoping for a more transparent and honest investigation that doesn't shy away from addressing possible mechanical flaws or lapses in protocol to avoid future potential accidents'. 'I just hope the final report brings full clarity on what exactly failed and who's accountable. It shouldn't hide behind vague terms. More than anything, it should push for real changes so this never happens again," the Ahmedabad resident said. Tushar Joge, whose two relatives were on the ill-fated aircraft, alleged that the preliminary report was a "cover up" to save Air India and Boeing. "We were pre-empting that they would start blaming the pilots," Mr Joge was quoted as saying by The Times of India. In the wake of the preliminary findings, Boeing privately issued a notification stating that the fuel switch locks on Boeing planes were safe, Reuters reported. The US Federal Aviation Administration separately said that "although the fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models, the FAA does not consider this issue to be an unsafe condition that would warrant an Airworthiness Directive on any Boeing airplane models, including the Model 787'.
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
The unanswered questions from the Air India crash report
Over the weekend, the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau released a preliminary report on last month's crash of Air India flight 171, which killed 260 people, 19 of them on the ground. The aim of a preliminary report is to present factual information gathered so far and to inform further lines of inquiry. However, the 15-page document has also led to unfounded speculation and theories that are currently not supported by the evidence. Here's what the report actually says, why we don't yet know what caused the crash, and why it's important not to speculate. What we know for certain is that the aircraft lost power in both engines just after takeoff. According to the report, this is supported by video footage showing the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT), and the examination of the air inlet door of the auxiliary power unit (APU). The RAT is deployed when both engines fail, all hydraulic systems are lost, or there is a total electrical power loss. The APU air inlet door opens when the system attempts to start automatically due to dual engine failure. The preliminary investigation suggests both engines shut down because the fuel flow stopped. Attention has now shifted to the fuel control switches, located on the throttle lever panel between the pilots. Data from the enhanced airborne flight recorder suggests these switches may have been moved from 'run' to 'cutoff' three seconds after liftoff. Ten seconds later, the switches were moved back to 'run'. The report also suggests the pilots were aware the engines had shut down and attempted to restart them. Despite their effort, the engines couldn't restart in time. We don't know what the pilots did Flight data recorders don't capture pilot actions. They record system responses and sensor data, which can sometimes lead to the belief they're an accurate representation of the pilot's actions in the cockpit. While this is true most of the time, this is not always the case. In my own work investigating safety incidents, I've seen cases in which automated systems misinterpreted inputs. In one case, a system recorded a pilot pressing the same button six times in two seconds, something humanly impossible. On further investigation, it turned out to be a faulty system, not a real action. We cannot yet rule out the possibility that system damage or sensor error led to false data being recorded. We also don't know whether the pilots unintentionally flicked the switches to 'cutoff'. And we may never know. As we also don't have a camera in the cockpit, any interpretation of pilots' actions will be made indirectly, usually through the data sensed by theaircraft and the conversation, sound and noise captured by the environmental microphone available in the cockpit. We don't have the full conversation between the pilots Perhaps the most confusing clue in the report was an excerpt of a conversation between the pilots. It says: 'In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.' This short exchange is entirely without context. First, we don't know who says what. Second, we don't know when the question was asked – after takeoff, or after the engine started to lose power? Third, we don't know the exact words used, because the excerpt in the report is paraphrased. Finally, we don't know whether the exchange referred to the engine status or the switch position. Again, we may never know. What's crucial here is that the current available evidence doesn't support any theory about intentional fuel cutoff by either of the pilots. To say otherwise is unfounded speculation. We don't know if there was a mechanical failure The preliminary report indicates that, for now, there are no actions required by Boeing, General Electric or any company that operates the Boeing 787-8 and/or GEnx-1B engine. This has led some to speculate that a mechanical failure has been ruled out. Again, it is far too early to conclude that. What the preliminary report shows is that the investigation team has not found any evidence to suggest the aircraft suffered a catastrophic failure that requires immediate attention or suspension of operations around the world. This could be because there was no catastrophic failure. It could also be because the physical evidence has been so badly damaged that investigators will need more time and other sources of evidence to learn what happened. Why we must resist premature conclusions In the aftermath of an accident, there is much at stake for many people: the manufacturer of the aircraft, the airline, the airport, civil aviation authority and others. The families of the victims understandably demand answers. It's also tempting to latch onto a convenient explanation. But the preliminary report is not the full story. It's based on very limited data, analysed under immense pressure, and without access to every subsystem or mechanical trace. The final report is still to come. Until then, the responsible position for regulators, experts and the public is to withhold judgement. This tragedy reminds us that aviation safety depends on patient and thorough investigation – not media soundbites or unqualified expert commentary. We owe it to the victims and their families to get the facts right, not just fast.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Pilot mental health in spotlight after Air India Flight 171 disaster
Investigations into the Air India plane crash are looking into the pilots' medical records as it's claimed one of them had depression and mental health issues. Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, an experienced pilot with more than 8,200 hours in the cockpit, was piloting the Boeing 787 Dreamliner when it plummeted into a residential area, called Meghani Nagar, killing 241 people on board and claiming 19 more lives of those on the ground. Seconds after taking off on June 12, two fuel switches in the cockpit of Air India Flight 171 were turned off shortly after take off, resulting in a catastrophic loss of power and the aircraft crashing to the ground . The switches' 'locking feature' meant pilots had to lift them up before changing their position, they are not simple push buttons which can be accidentally turned off. Now, investigations into the tragic crash have begun to analyse the behaviour of the pilot. Captain Mohan Ranganathan, a leading aviation safety expert in India, has revealed that 'several' Air India pilots had allegedly confirmed that the well-experienced pilot had suffered from poor mental health. Speaking to The Daily Telegraph , he claimed: 'He had taken time off from flying in the last three to four years. He had taken medical leave for that. Captain Sabharwal is also understood to have taken bereavement leave after the death of his mother, though it is believed by Mr Ranganathan that he had been 'medically cleared' by Air India prior to the fatal crash last month. In Powai, Mumbai, one of Captain Sabharwal's former colleagues described him as a 'thorough gentlemen' telling the publication that he believed 'he was actually considering early retirement in the next couple of years', with plans to look after his elderly father, aged 90. In his short career, co-pilot Clive Kunder, 28, had logged more than 3,400 hours. The Telegraph said that while Air India declined to comment, an official working with their parent company, Tata Group, told the publication that Captain Sabharwal had not taken any medical leave, with the preliminary report failing to obtain any significant findings. They added that within the last two years, both pilots onboard the flight had passed the Class I medical exam, which makes an evaluation of their psycho-physical capabilities. On Sunday, a preliminary report released by the Indian authorities led to questions about why the pilot would have manually turned the switches off - and whether it was a deliberate act or a catastrophic mistake. The report said: 'In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other: why did he cut off? The other pilot responded that he did not do so.' Pilots will turn the fuel switches on and off at the correct times in every flight, but this time the fuel was cut off straight after takeoff and the landing gear was not raised. The co-pilot was flying the aircraft at the time of takeoff while the captain was monitoring. The report added that the switches were flipped back to 'run' seconds afterwards, which started the process of relighting the engines. One of the engines had relit but had not gained power while the other was in the process of regaining power. At the crash site, but switches were found in the 'run' position. Before the flight, both pilots had an adequate rest period and were found 'fit to operate' following a breath analyser test, the report said. There were no dangerous goods on the plane and the weight was 'within allowable limits'. Fuel samples taken from the tanks were tested and found to be 'satisfactory' and there was 'no significant bird activity' observed in and around the flight path of the aircraft. But Mr Ranganthan previously suggested it may have been deliberate. Each lever has to be pulled upwards to be unlocked, before it can be flipped and they also have further protective guard brackets to safeguard against any bumps and nudges. Explaining that he believed it 'had to be done manually', Mr Ranganathan told NDTV of the fuel levers: 'The fuel selectors they aren't the sliding type they are always in a slot. 'They are to pull them out or move them up or down, so the question of them moving inadvertently out of off position doesn't happen. It's a case of deliberate manual selection.' He later said 'nothing else' would explain why both switches were moved into the off position just after take off, alleging: 'It had to be deliberately done.' When questioned if he was suggesting one of the pilots 'deliberately' switched off the fuel lever, while fully aware of the possibility of a crash, he answered: 'Absolutely', before asserting they were looking at a potential 'pilot-induced crash'. But relatives of some of the victims of the crash have accused the airline and the Indian government of trying to blame the pilots for the crash. Ameen Siddiqui, 28, whose brother-in-law, Akeel Nanabawa, died alongside his wife and their four-year-old daughter said: 'This report is wrong. We don't accept it.' 'It's a cover-up to protect Air India and the government,' Mr Siddiqui told The Telegraph from Surat, south of Ahmedabad, where the plane crashed. 'They want to blame dead pilots who can't defend themselves. How can the fuel switches end up turning off at a critical moment, either through pilot error or a mechanical fault? CCTV footage from the airport showed that the ram air turbine, known as the RAT, was deployed shortly after takeoff. The RAT acts as a backup power source during emergencies and will deploy in cases of complete power failure. The report said two minutes after takeoff, one of the pilots transmitted: 'Mayday, Mayday, Mayday'. In December 2018 the US air regulator Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warned airlines that fuel switches had been installed in some Boeing 737s 'with the locking feature disengaged'. 'If the locking feature is disengaged, the switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting the switch during transition, and the switch would be exposed to the potential of inadvertent operation,' the FAA warned in a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin. 'Inadvertent operation of the switch could result in an unintended consequence, such as an in-flight engine shutdown.' It recommended airlines inspect the switches, including 'whether the fuel control switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting up the switch'. The airworthiness concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant a legally enforceable regulation to correct unsafe conditions. Air India has suggested such inspections were not carried out because the FAA's bulletin was 'advisory and not mandatory'. Sole survivor Vishwash Kumar Ramesh had been in the country on a business trip with his brother Ajaykumar, 35, before they boarded the doomed flight travelling from Ahmedabad to Gatwick on Thursday. In what has been described as a miracle, Viswash - seated in 11A by the exit - survived, but his sibling who was sat on the other side of the aisle in seat 11J perished in the fireball explosion. Before the discovery of the British survivor, authorities said that they believed no one had escaped the flight alive. Eleven of those on board were children, including two newborns. An Air India spokesperson previously said: 'Air India stands in solidarity with the families and those affected by the AI171 accident. We continue to mourn the loss and are fully committed to providing support during this difficult time. We acknowledge receipt of the preliminary report released by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) today, 12 July 2025. 'Air India is working closely with stakeholders, including regulators. We continue to fully cooperate with the AAIB and other authorities as their investigation progresses. 'Given the active nature of the investigation, we are unable to comment on specific details and refer all such enquiries to the AAIB.' Air India was contacted for comment.
