8¿2(2+2) ?

First the guy explaining the PEDMAS method changes 2+2 to 2X2. Yes these are the same but what mathematician would do that? Then he says...

8÷2(2x2) = 8÷2(4) = 8÷8 = 1 = Answer is 1

2 raised to the fourth is 16, not 8. WTF are these people talking about???

I see no 2 raised to the fourth power.

How would you interpret that?

In my 50+ years of engineering mathematical notations, before we had easily available subscripts and superscripts, we would use the ^ "carot" figure, or sometimes (e) or (*), such as

2^(2+2) or

2(*)(2+2) or

2 (e) (2+2)

A number abutted right up to another operation is always a straight multiplication.

That's the way we have always done it.

add the internal 2s then multiply by 2.

I know that the parentheses is in the denominator and i'm sure that any machine running fortran or basic would solve this :

8 / 2(2+2) = 8 / 2(4) = 8/ 8 = 1

but I can't put my finger on a rule. pedmas does indeed return a 16, but I think that might require an explicit * rather than that distributive property.