• AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      My mom’s a mathematician, she got annoyed when I said that the order of operations is just arbitrary rules made up by people a couple thousand years ago

      • tamal3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s organized so that more powerful operations get precedence, which seems natural.

        Set aside intentionally confusing expressions. The basic idea of the Order of Operations holds water even without ever formally learning the rules.

        If an addition result comes first and gets exponentiated, the changes from the addition are exaggerated. It makes addition more powerful than it should be. The big stuff should happen first, then the more granular operations. Of course, there are specific cases where we need to reorder, or add clarity, which is why human decisions about groupings are at the top.

        • The big stuff should happen first, then the more granular operations

          The “big stuff” is stuff that is defined in terms of something else. i.e. exponents are shorthand for repeated multiplication… and multiplication is shorthand for repeated addition, hence they have to be done in that order or you get wrong answers.

          • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            “Wrong answers” only according to our current order of operations, math still works if you, for example, make additions come first (as long as you’re consistent about it).

            OFC it is a convention and to change it you would have to change all expressions ever written all at the same time, to avoid confusion between competing standards. I’m not arguing that it should be changed, only that there is no ‘high truth’ behind it.

            • “Wrong answers” only according to our current order of operations

              No, according to arithmetic.

              math still works if you, for example, make additions come first

              No, it doesn’t - order of operations proof. The only way it could work with addition first is if we swapped the definitions of addition and multiplication around… but then we still have the same order of operations, all we’ve done is swapped around what we call addition and multiplication!

              there is no ‘high truth’ behind it.

              There is when it comes to order of operations.

              • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                Let’s assume for a minute addition comes first. We know 2+3 is 5, and 5x4 is the same as 5+5+5+5=20. What is the issue with that?

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Different compilers have robbed me of all trust in order-of-operations. If there’s any possibility of ambiguity - it’s going in parentheses. If something’s fucky and I can’t tell where, well, better parenthesize my equations, just in case.

    • linuxdweeb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is best practice since there is no standard order of operations across languages. It’s an easy place for bugs to sneak in, and it takes a non-insignificant amount of time to debug.

    • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the way. It’s an intentionally ambiguously written problem to cause this issue depending on how and where you learned order of operations to cause a fight.

        • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Please see this section of Wikipedia on the order of operations.

          The “math” itself might not be ambiguous, but how we write it down absolutely can be. This is why you don’t see actual mathematicians arguing over which one of these calculators is correct - it is not either calculator being wrong, it is a poorly constructed equation.

          As for order of operations, they are “meant to be” the same everywhere, but they are taught differently. US - PEMDAS vs UK - BODMAS (notice division and multiplication swapped places). Now, they will say they are both given equal priority, but you can’t actually do all of the multiplication and division at one time. Some are taught to simply work left to right, while others are taught to do multiplication first; but we are all taught to use parentheses correctly to eliminate ambiguity.

          • Please see this section of Wikipedia on the order of operations

            That section is about multiplication, and there isn’t any multiplication in this expression.

            The “math” itself might not be ambiguous, but how we write it down absolutely can be

            Not in this case it isn’t. It has been written in a way which obeys all the rules of Maths.

            This is why you don’t see actual mathematicians arguing over which one of these calculators is correct

            But I do! I see University lecturers - who have forgotten their high school Maths rules (which is where this topic is taught) - arguing about it.

            it is not either calculator being wrong

            Yes, it is. The app written by the programmer is ignoring The Distributive Law (most likely because the programmer has forgotten it and not bothered to check his Maths is correct first).

            US - PEMDAS vs UK - BODMAS

            Those aren’t the rules. They are mnemonics to help you remember the rules

            notice division and multiplication swapped places

            Yes, that’s right, because they have equal precedence and it literally doesn’t matter which way around you do them.

            you can’t actually do all of the multiplication and division at one time

            Yes, you can!

            Some are taught to simply work left to right

            Yes, that’s because that’s the easy way to obey the actual rule of Left associativity.

            we are all taught to use parentheses correctly to eliminate ambiguity

            Correct! So 2(2+2) unambiguously has to be done before the division.

            • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Just out of curiosity, what is the first 2 doing in “2(2+2)”…? What are you doing with it? Possibly multiplying it with something else?

              there isn’t any multiplication in this expression.

              Interesting.

              I really hope you aren’t actually a math teacher, because I feel bad for your students being taught so poorly by someone that barely has a middle school understanding of math. And for the record, I doubt anyone is going to accept links to your blog as proof that you are correct.

  • Pavidus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s quite a few calculators that get this wrong. In college, I found out that Casio calculators do things the right way, are affordable, and readily available. I stuck with it through the rest of my classes.

    • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Casio does a wonderful job, and it’s a shame they aren’t more standard in American schooling. Texas Instruments costs more of the same jobs, and is mandatory for certain systems or tests. You need to pay like $40 for a calculator that hasn’t changed much if at all from the 1990’s.

      Meanwhile I have a Casio fx-115ES Plus and it does everything that one did, plus some nice quality of life features, for less money.

      • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you’re lucky, you can find these TI calculators in thrift shops or other similar places. I’ve been lucky since I got both of my last 2 graphing calculators at a yard sale and thrift shop respectively, for maybe around $40-$50 for both.

      • Limitless_screaming@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, you’d expect that -2^2 would equal 4, but calculators solve it as -(2)^2 not (-2)^2. But the case you mentioned is also pretty common.

        • ReveredOxygen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          if you’ve touched polynomials ever, you’d expect the exponent to be before the negation. If you write x³-x² you don’t mean x³ + (-x)² = x³+x², you mean x³-(x²)

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you really wanna see a bloodbath, watch this:

      You know that a couple has two children. You go to the couple’s house and one of their children, a young boy, opens the door. What is the probability that the couple’s other child is a girl?

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oops, I changed it to a more unintuitive one right after you replied! In my original comment, I said “you flip two coins, and you only know that at least one of them landed on heads. What is the probability that both landed on heads?”

          And… No! Conditional probability strikes again! When you flipped those coins, the four possible outcomes were TT, TH, HT, HH

          When you found out that at least one coin landed on heads, all you did was rule out TT. Now the possibilities are HT, TH, and HH. There’s actually only a 1/3 chance that both are heads! If I had specified that one particular coin landed on heads, then it would be 50%

          • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No. It’s still 50-50. Observing doesn’t change probabilities (except maybe in quantum lol). This isn’t like the Monty Hall where you make a choice.

            The problem is that you stopped your probably tree too early. There is the chance that the first kid is a boy, the chance the second kid is a boy, AND the chance that the first kid answered the door. Here is the full tree, the gender of the first kid, the gender of the second and which child opened the door, last we see if your observation (boy at the door) excludes that scenario.

            1 2 D E


            B B 1 N

            B G 1 N

            G B 1 Y

            G G 1 Y

            B B 2 N

            B G 2 Y

            G B 2 N

            G G 2 Y

            You can see that of the scenarios that are not excluded there are two where the other child is a boy and two there the other child is a girl. 50-50. Observing doesn’t affect probabilities of events because your have to include the odds that you observe what you observed.

  • Elderos@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    In some countries we’re taught to treat implicit multiplications as a block, as if it was surrounded by parenthesis. Not sure what exactly this convention is called, but afaic this shit was never ambiguous here. It is a convention thing, there is no right or wrong as the convention needs to be given first. It is like arguing the spelling of color vs colour.

  • arisunz@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    this comment section illustrates perfectly why i hate maths so much lmao

    love ambiguous, confusing rules nobody can even agree on!

  • subignition@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    […] the question is ambiguous. There is no right or wrong if there are different conflicting rules. The only ones who claim that there is one rule are the ones which are wrong!

    https://people.math.harvard.edu/~knill/pedagogy/ambiguity/index.html

    As youngsters, math students are drilled in a particular
    convention for the “order of operations,” which dictates the order thus:
    parentheses, exponents, multiplication and division (to be treated
    on equal footing, with ties broken by working from left to right), and
    addition and subtraction (likewise of equal priority, with ties similarly
    broken). Strict adherence to this elementary PEMDAS convention, I argued,
    leads to only one answer: 16.

    Nonetheless, many readers (including my editor), equally adherent to what
    they regarded as the standard order of operations, strenuously insisted
    the right answer was 1. What was going on? After reading through the
    many comments on the article, I realized most of these respondents were
    using a different (and more sophisticated) convention than the elementary
    PEMDAS convention I had described in the article.

    In this more sophisticated convention, which is often used in
    algebra, implicit multiplication is given higher priority than explicit
    multiplication or explicit division, in which those operations are written
    explicitly with symbols like x * / or ÷. Under this more sophisticated
    convention, the implicit multiplication in 2(2 + 2) is given higher
    priority than the explicit division in 8÷2(2 + 2). In other words,
    2(2+2) should be evaluated first. Doing so yields 8÷2(2 + 2) = 8÷8 = 1.
    By the same rule, many commenters argued that the expression 8 ÷ 2(4)
    was not synonymous with 8÷2x4, because the parentheses demanded immediate
    resolution, thus giving 8÷8 = 1 again.

    This convention is very reasonable, and I agree that the answer is 1
    if we adhere to it. But it is not universally adopted.

  • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    For anyone like me who has math as their worst subject: PEMDAS.

    PEMDAS is an acronym used to mention the order of operations to be followed while solving expressions having multiple operations. PEMDAS stands for P- Parentheses, E- Exponents, M- Multiplication, D- Division, A- Addition, and S- Subtraction.

    So we gotta do it in the proper order. And remember, if the number is written like 2(3) then its multiplication, as if it was written 2 x 3 or 2 * 3.

    So we read 8/2(2+2) and need to do the following;

    • Read the Parentheses of (2 + 2) and follow the order of operations within them, which gets us 4.
    • Then we do 2(4) which is the same as 2 x 4 which is 8
    • 8 / 8 is 1.

    The answer is 1. The old calculator is correct, the phone app which has ads backed into it for a thing that all computers were invented to do is inaccurate.

    • a_fine_hound@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well that’s just wrong… Multiplication and division have equal priorities so they are done from left to right. So: 8 / 2 * (2 + 2)=8 / 2 * 4=4 * 4=16

      • nutcase2690@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not quite, pemdas can go either from the left or right (as long as you are consistent) and division is the same priority as multiplication because dividing by something is equal to multiplying by the inverse of that thing… same as subtraction being just addition but you flip the sign.

        8×1/2=8/2 1-1=1+(-1)

        The result is 16 if you rewrite the problem with this in mind: 8÷2(2+2)=8×(1/2)×(2+2)