A claim entirely unsupported by the textbook example you provided
says person who pointed out to begin with it was talking about conventions. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I even underlined it for you. Ok, then, tell me which convention exactly they are talking about if it isn’t left to right 😂
Nowhere does it say that one is a convention
It quite clearly states that left to right is a convention 🙄
but not the other
“the other” wasn’t even the subject at hand. 🙄 Here you go then…
it only says that removing brackets changes the meaning in some situations, which is fully within the scope of a convention
But not within the scope of rules 🙄
There you go again, just admitting you don’t know what postfix and prefix notations are.
There you go again not being able to say what the RULES for them are! 🤣🤣🤣 I admitted nothing of the kind by the way. I already told you 3 times they obey the same rules 🙄
here is a great free article from Colorado State university
It’s pretty rubbish actually - finding a blog post by someone as ill-informed as you doesn’t make it “great”. Note that I always cite Maths textbooks and thus have no need to ever quote blog posts? 😂
Note how it says the rules about operator precedence are for the notation
Because (sigh) the same rules apply to all notations 🙄
which itself is a convention, as all notations are
Yep, and are separate to the rules, which are the same for all notations
Note how it says the rules about operator precedence are for the notation
Nope. Doesn’t say that anywhere. Go ahead and screenshot the part which you think says that. I’ll wait
how prefix and postfix don’t need those rules
Doesn’t say that either. 🙄 Again, provide a screenshot of where you think it says that
BTW this is completely wrong…
“Infix notation needs extra information to make the order of evaluation of the operators clear” - Anyone who knows the definitions of the operators and grouping symbols is able to derive the rules for themselves, no need for any “extra information” 🙄
“For example, the usual rules for associativity say that we perform operations from left to right” - The thing we just established is a convention, not rules 🙄
“so the multiplication by A is assumed to come before the division by D” - Which we’ve already established can be done in any order 🙄
How embarrassing for you
No, you actually. You know, the person who can’t find a single textbook that agrees with them 😂
Here are some more materials
NONE of which were Maths textbooks, NOR Maths teachers 😂
A post by Berkley university about popular ambiguous equations
None of which are actually ambiguous. He should’ve looked in a Maths textbook before writing it 😂
“the 48/2(9+3) question” - 48/2(9+3)=48/(2x9+2x3), per The Distributive Law, as found in Maths textbooks 😂
A published paper from Berkley that has been cited, with much stronger language on the matter
Did you even read it?? Dude doesn’t even know the definition of Terms, ab=(axb) 🤣🤣🤣
Here is an article from the university of Melbourne
“Without an agreed upon order” - Ummm, we have proven rules, which literally anyone can prove to themselves 😂
Article from the university of utah
“There is no mathematical reason for the convention” - There are reasons for all the conventions - talk about admitting right at the start that you don’t know much about Maths 🙄
A howstuffworks article on order of operations that explains it
It only explains the mnemonics actually, not why the rules are what they are. 🙄
Did you read it?? 🤣🤣🤣
“The order of operations — as Americans know it today — was probably formalized in either the late 18th century” - Nope! Way older than that 🙄
doesn’t have the pedigree of a university, but still clearly explained
It actually did a better job than all of the university blogs you posted! 🤣🤣🤣
Plus dozens of Quora answers, articles from online academies and learning centers, that I figured you’d just dismiss.
Because not Maths textbooks, duuuuhhhh 🤣🤣🤣
But to top it all off, if this was truely a law of mathematics
Which it is as per Maths textbooks 🤣🤣🤣
then show me a proof, theorem, or even a mathematical conjecture, about order of operations.
The proof is it’s the reverse operation to Factorising, thus must be done first 🙄
But since you hate Maths textbooks, go ahead and search for “reverse operation of distributive law” and let me know what you find. I’ll wait 🤣🤣🤣
says person who pointed out to begin with it was talking about conventions. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I even underlined it for you. Ok, then, tell me which convention exactly they are talking about if it isn’t left to right 😂
It quite clearly states that left to right is a convention 🙄
“the other” wasn’t even the subject at hand. 🙄 Here you go then…
But not within the scope of rules 🙄
There you go again not being able to say what the RULES for them are! 🤣🤣🤣 I admitted nothing of the kind by the way. I already told you 3 times they obey the same rules 🙄
It’s pretty rubbish actually - finding a blog post by someone as ill-informed as you doesn’t make it “great”. Note that I always cite Maths textbooks and thus have no need to ever quote blog posts? 😂
Because (sigh) the same rules apply to all notations 🙄
Yep, and are separate to the rules, which are the same for all notations
Nope. Doesn’t say that anywhere. Go ahead and screenshot the part which you think says that. I’ll wait
Doesn’t say that either. 🙄 Again, provide a screenshot of where you think it says that
BTW this is completely wrong…
“Infix notation needs extra information to make the order of evaluation of the operators clear” - Anyone who knows the definitions of the operators and grouping symbols is able to derive the rules for themselves, no need for any “extra information” 🙄
“For example, the usual rules for associativity say that we perform operations from left to right” - The thing we just established is a convention, not rules 🙄
“so the multiplication by A is assumed to come before the division by D” - Which we’ve already established can be done in any order 🙄
No, you actually. You know, the person who can’t find a single textbook that agrees with them 😂
NONE of which were Maths textbooks, NOR Maths teachers 😂
None of which are actually ambiguous. He should’ve looked in a Maths textbook before writing it 😂
“the 48/2(9+3) question” - 48/2(9+3)=48/(2x9+2x3), per The Distributive Law, as found in Maths textbooks 😂
Did you even read it?? Dude doesn’t even know the definition of Terms, ab=(axb) 🤣🤣🤣
“Without an agreed upon order” - Ummm, we have proven rules, which literally anyone can prove to themselves 😂
“There is no mathematical reason for the convention” - There are reasons for all the conventions - talk about admitting right at the start that you don’t know much about Maths 🙄
It only explains the mnemonics actually, not why the rules are what they are. 🙄
Did you read it?? 🤣🤣🤣
“The order of operations — as Americans know it today — was probably formalized in either the late 18th century” - Nope! Way older than that 🙄
It actually did a better job than all of the university blogs you posted! 🤣🤣🤣
Because not Maths textbooks, duuuuhhhh 🤣🤣🤣
Which it is as per Maths textbooks 🤣🤣🤣
The proof is it’s the reverse operation to Factorising, thus must be done first 🙄
But since you hate Maths textbooks, go ahead and search for “reverse operation of distributive law” and let me know what you find. I’ll wait 🤣🤣🤣