Please read this section of Wikipedia which talks about these topics better than I could

Please read Maths textbooks which explain it better than Joe Blow Your next Door neighbour on Wikipedia. there’s plenty in here

It shows that there is ambiguity in the order of operations

and is wrong about that, as proven by Maths textbooks

especially niche cases there is not a universally accepted order of operations when dealing with mixed division and multiplication

That’s because Multiplication and Division can be done in any order

It addresses everything you’ve mentioned

wrongly, as per Maths textbooks

Multiplication denoted by juxtaposition (also known as implied multiplication)

Nope. Terms/Products is what they are called. “implied multiplication” is a “rule” made up by people who have forgotten the actual rules.

s often given higher precedence than most other operations

Always is, because brackets first. ab=(axb) by definition

1 / 2n is interpreted to mean 1 / (2 · n)

As per the definition that ab=(axb), 1/2n=1/(2xn).

[2][10][14][15]

Did you look at the references, and note that there are no Maths textbooks listed?

the manuscript submission instructions for the Physical Review journals

Which isn’t a Maths textbook

the convention observed in physics textbooks

Also not Maths textbooks

mathematics textbooks such as Concrete Mathematics by Graham, Knuth, and Patashnik

Actually that is a Computer Science textbook, written for programmers. Knuth is a very famous programmer

More complicated cases are more ambiguous

None of them are ambiguous.

the notation 1 / 2π(a + b) could plausibly mean either 1 / [2π · (a + b)]

It does as per the rules of Maths, but more precisely it actually means 1 / (2πa + 2πb)

or [1 / (2π)] · (a + b).[18]

No, it can’t mean that unless it was written (1 / 2π)(a + b), which it wasn’t

Sometimes interpretation depends on context

Nope, never

more explicit expressions (a / b) / c or a / (b / c) are unambiguous

a/b/c is already unambiguous - left to right. 🙄

Image of two calculators getting different answers

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÷2(1+2) is interpreted as 6÷(2×(1+2))

6÷(2x1+2x2) actually, as per The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)

(6÷2)×(1+2) by a TI-83 Plus calculator (lower)

Yep, Texas Instruments is the only one still doing it wrong

This ambiguity

doesn’t exist, as per Maths textbooks

“8 ÷ 2(2 + 2)”, for which there are two conflicting interpretations:

No there isn’t - you MUST obey The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)

Mathematics education researcher Hung-Hsi Wu points out that “one never gets a computation of this type in real life”

And he was wrong about that. 🙄

calls such contrived examples

Which notably can be found in Maths textbooks