>>53777076I gave an answer
>>53776233 but if I ever see this notation in the wild, I would have to do a double take, then do as a computer would do, and I still would be unsure if the person used his own notation correctly, because the notation is retarded, so the person is probably retarded.
So there is a correct answer, but the notation is as retarded and confusing as can be, so I wouldn't trust the average person to use it corretly, because they're retarded. But the average person would get this correct 9/10 times if fractions were used. So it's not a math problem, it's a notation problem. Also, I would beat the shit out of Oppenheimer, 10/10 times, high-diff.
