Comment on I dunno
JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 days agoPlease read this section of Wikipedia which talks about these topics better than I could. It shows that there is ambiguity in the order of operations and that for especially niche cases there is not a universally accepted order of operations when dealing with mixed division and multiplication. It addresses everything you’ve mentioned.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Mixed_d…
There is no universal convention for interpreting an expression containing both division denoted by ‘÷’ and multiplication denoted by ‘×’. Proposed conventions include assigning the operations equal precedence and evaluating them from left to right, or equivalently treating division as multiplication by the reciprocal and then evaluating in any order;[10] evaluating all multiplications first followed by divisions from left to right; or eschewing such expressions and instead always disambiguating them by explicit parentheses.[11]
Beyond primary education, the symbol ‘÷’ for division is seldom used, but is replaced by the use of algebraic fractions,[12] typically written vertically with the numerator stacked above the denominator – which makes grouping explicit and unambiguous – but sometimes written inline using the slash or solidus symbol ‘/’.[13]
Multiplication denoted by juxtaposition (also known as implied multiplication) creates a visual unit and is often given higher precedence than most other operations. In academic literature, when inline fractions are combined with implied multiplication without explicit parentheses, the multiplication is conventionally interpreted as having higher precedence than division, so that e.g. 1 / 2n is interpreted to mean 1 / (2 · n) rather than (1 / 2) · n.[2][10][14][15] For instance, the manuscript submission instructions for the Physical Review journals directly state that multiplication has precedence over division,[16] and this is also the convention observed in physics textbooks such as the Course of Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshitz[c] and mathematics textbooks such as Concrete Mathematics by Graham, Knuth, and Patashnik.[17] However, some authors recommend against expressions such as a / bc, preferring the explicit use of parenthesis a / (bc).[3]
More complicated cases are more ambiguous. For instance, the notation 1 / 2π(a + b) could plausibly mean either 1 / [2π · (a + b)] or [1 / (2π)] · (a + b).[18] Sometimes interpretation depends on context. The Physical Review submission instructions recommend against expressions of the form a / b / c; more explicit expressions (a / b) / c or a / (b / c) are unambiguous.[16]
Image of two calculators getting different answers: 6÷2(1+2) is interpreted as 6÷(2×(1+2)) by a fx-82MS (upper), and (6÷2)×(1+2) by a TI-83 Plus calculator (lower), respectively.
This ambiguity has been the subject of Internet memes such as “8 ÷ 2(2 + 2)”, for which there are two conflicting interpretations: 8 ÷ [2 · (2 + 2)] = 1 and (8 ÷ 2) · (2 + 2) = 16.[15][19] Mathematics education researcher Hung-Hsi Wu points out that “one never gets a computation of this type in real life”, and calls such contrived examples “a kind of Gotcha! parlor game designed to trap an unsuspecting person by phrasing it in terms of a set of unreasonably convoluted rules”.[12]
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 3 days ago
Please read Maths textbooks which explain it better than Joe Blow Your next Door neighbour on Wikipedia. there’s plenty in here
and is wrong about that, as proven by Maths textbooks
That’s because Multiplication and Division can be done in any order
wrongly, as per Maths textbooks
Nope. Terms/Products is what they are called. “implied multiplication” is a “rule” made up by people who have forgotten the actual rules.
Always is, because brackets first. ab=(axb) by definition
As per the definition that ab=(axb), 1/2n=1/(2xn).
Did you look at the references, and note that there are no Maths textbooks listed?
Which isn’t a Maths textbook
Also not Maths textbooks
Actually that is a Computer Science textbook, written for programmers. Knuth is a very famous programmer
None of them are ambiguous.
It does as per the rules of Maths, but more precisely it actually means 1 / (2πa + 2πb)
No, it can’t mean that unless it was written (1 / 2π)(a + b), which it wasn’t
Nope, never
a/b/c is already unambiguous - left to right. 🙄
With the exception of Texas Instruments, all the other calculator manufacturers have gone back to doing it correctly, and Sharp have always done it correctly.
6÷(2x1+2x2) actually, as per The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)
Yep, Texas Instruments is the only one still doing it wrong
doesn’t exist, as per Maths textbooks
No there isn’t - you MUST obey The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)
And he was wrong about that. 🙄
Which notably can be found in Maths textbooks
JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 days ago
If you believe the article is incorrect, submit your corrections to Wikipedia instead of telling me.
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 3 days ago
You know they’ve rejected corrections by actual Maths Professors right? Just look for Rick Norwood in the talk section. Everyone who knows Maths knows Wikipedia is wrong, and looks in the right place to begin with - Maths textbooks
JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 days ago
Again, if you have a problem with Wikipedia, take it up with Wikipedia.