If you’re willing to pirate (or legally generate) a TI calculator ROM, then Graph 89 is probably what you’re looking for. This is what I use as my daily driver calculator with a TI-89 ROM.
So my Graph-89 with the TI-89 gives the following output, similar to yours:
On the TI-89, it actually tells you how it expands out the ambiguous expression 8/2(2+2).
Technically speaking, if you don’t discriminate between explicit {8/2•(2+2)} and implicit {8/2(2+2)} multiplication, i.e. if implicit and explicit multiplication are evaluated in the same order as the same operation, and multiplication and division are given the same precedence, then 16 is the correct result. However, we often, but not always, do see implicit multiplication used to group together related terms that need to be multiplied out first. Additionally, recall the typical mnemonics for memorizing order of operations: BODMAS and PEMDAS. Both because acronyms seem to imply that we give higher precedence to division for BODMAS or multiplication for PEMDAS, but actually multiplication and division have the same precedence. Thus, the expression can’t be evaluated as {8/(2•(2+2)) = 1} as BODMAS might suggest if it is misinterpreted.
I picked Graph-89 to recommend (and for my own usage) because its behavior with respect to implicit multiplication (and implicit or ambiguous expressions in general) is well documented in the manual. Also…TI makes some pretty good calculators, better than some ad-ridden mobile app for sure.
Incidentally, this exact expression as it is written is chosen to highlight a pitfall of mathematical notation. If I were running this calculation, even just for myself, I would actually add the parentheses needed to disambiguate the expression. So for me, this situation never comes up. On paper, I would use a single fraction bar that “covers” both of the arguments of the division, or I might drop in “redundant” parentheses to explicitly specify the operation. Even though there are established conventions for multiple fractions and multiple exponentiations, I’ll actually add parentheses to single exponentiations or fractions and stack them individually, because I don’t remember those conventions, lol.
If you’re willing to pirate (or legally generate) a TI calculator ROM, then Graph 89 is probably what you’re looking for. This is what I use as my daily driver calculator with a TI-89 ROM.
Graph 89 with my TI-84 Plus Silver yields the bad answer
So my Graph-89 with the TI-89 gives the following output, similar to yours:
On the TI-89, it actually tells you how it expands out the ambiguous expression 8/2(2+2).
Technically speaking, if you don’t discriminate between explicit {8/2•(2+2)} and implicit {8/2(2+2)} multiplication, i.e. if implicit and explicit multiplication are evaluated in the same order as the same operation, and multiplication and division are given the same precedence, then 16 is the correct result. However, we often, but not always, do see implicit multiplication used to group together related terms that need to be multiplied out first. Additionally, recall the typical mnemonics for memorizing order of operations: BODMAS and PEMDAS. Both because acronyms seem to imply that we give higher precedence to division for BODMAS or multiplication for PEMDAS, but actually multiplication and division have the same precedence. Thus, the expression can’t be evaluated as {8/(2•(2+2)) = 1} as BODMAS might suggest if it is misinterpreted.
I picked Graph-89 to recommend (and for my own usage) because its behavior with respect to implicit multiplication (and implicit or ambiguous expressions in general) is well documented in the manual. Also…TI makes some pretty good calculators, better than some ad-ridden mobile app for sure.
Incidentally, this exact expression as it is written is chosen to highlight a pitfall of mathematical notation. If I were running this calculation, even just for myself, I would actually add the parentheses needed to disambiguate the expression. So for me, this situation never comes up. On paper, I would use a single fraction bar that “covers” both of the arguments of the division, or I might drop in “redundant” parentheses to explicitly specify the operation. Even though there are established conventions for multiple fractions and multiple exponentiations, I’ll actually add parentheses to single exponentiations or fractions and stack them individually, because I don’t remember those conventions, lol.