the number 5 has no inherent meaning behind it other than the convention of how we interpret it
Again, not a convention, a rule of how to interpret it. You can’t just decide to interpret 5 as four, or again, you end up with wrong answers. The rules of Maths prevent you from getting wrong answers. You found that out yourself when you tried to do addition first in 2+3x4.
It’s only a wrong answer if you use the same expression you would with the standard order of operations. And I’m not saying we can randomly start interpreting 5 as four, just that there is no law of the universe that makes 5 look like that, and we could theoretically (not practically ofc) switch the definitions of the symbols 5 and 4 if we did it all at once and revised old math expressions to match the new standard. Just as there is no reason the letters “bike” mean what they do other than that’s what someone decided to call it, there is no reason the order of operations is what it is other than that is how someone decided to write it.
Scratch doesn’t even have an order of operations. You can still do math in it.
I’m not saying you can take any expression and get the same answer by doing addition before multiplication. I’m saying you can take any problem and get the correct answer by doing addition before multiplication. In your milk example, that means I would use the expression 2+(3x4) because 2+3x4 is no longer the correct expression needed to solve the problem.
(For an example of my distinction of the words “expression” and “problem”, “(4x)+2” is an expression, and “I start with 2 litres of milk. For every dollar I spend, I get 4 more liters of milk. How much milk do I have?” is a problem.)
My argument also relies on a distinction between the language of modern math and the concept of doing math, defining math as the dictionary definition of “The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols”. As you can see, this makes no mention of the notation commonly used in math. All I am saying is that you can still use numbers to solve problems with an altered order of operations, or by altering any part of the system of notation.
Perhaps seeing how I could solve a problem with a different order of operations will help illustrate my argument:
Problem:
2 cars approach an interchange at a 90 degree angle to each other. Car A approaches the station from 15 meters away at 30 meters/second and Car B approaches the station from 50 meters away at 20 meters/second. How fast is the distance between the cars decreasing?
Answer: the rate of change of the distance between the cars is approximately -27.777 meters per second.
As you can see, I used my altered math notation to find the correct answer. I can still solve a real-world problem with this notation, but the same expressions you would use before may not work now.
Really? You want to do that again? Ok, fine… If I have 1 2 litre bottle of milk, and 4 3 litre bottles of milk - i.e. 2+3x4 - how many litres of milk do I have?
you would with the standard order of operations
The definition of 5 as being 1+1+1+1+1 has nothing to do with order of operations.
there is no law of the universe that makes 5 look like that
No, but there is a rule of Maths which defines it.
switch the definitions of the symbols 5 and 4 if we did it all at once and revised old math expressions to match the new standard
In other words everything would be the same as now but we just switched the notation around. I already said that to you a while back. Now you’re getting it.
there is no reason the order of operations is what it is other than that is how someone decided to write it
Got nothing to do with how it’s written - Maths is written differently in many different countries, and yet the underlying order of operations rules are universal.
I’m not saying you can take any expression and get the same answer by doing addition before multiplication
And if it’s not the same answer then it’s wrong. You’re nearly had it.
I’m saying you can take any problem and get the correct answer by doing addition before multiplication
And I told you you can’t. Waiting on a proof from you. Start with 2+3x4 - show me how you can get the correct answer by doing addition first - it’s a nice simple one. :-)
that means I would use the expression 2+(3x4) because 2+3x4
They’re literally the same thing.
All I am saying is that you can still use numbers to solve problems with an altered order of operations, or by altering any part of the system of notation
And I told you that it’s impossible. Changing the notation doesn’t change the Maths.
As you can see, I used my altered math notation to find the correct answer
BWAHAHAHAHA! Nope! I see you putting brackets around the multiplication to make sure it gets done first - same as if you hadn’t used brackets at all! It’s the exact same notation we use now, just with some redundant brackets added to it! And, predictably, you left the addition for last.
Ok, let’s take your example and do addition first (like you claimed can be done)…
15²+50²=15x15+50x50=15x65x50=48,750.
But 15²+50² is 2,725 according to my calculator. Ooooh, different answers - I wonder which one is right… I wonder which one is right…???
Thanks for proving it can only be done by following the order of operations rules (just like I’ve been saying to you all along). Bye now.
I"m beginning to wonder if you are willfully misunderstanding my point. Or perhaps you have sunk so much time into this argument you assume I must be wrong. Take another look at my third and fifth paragraphs. I promise, I am not trying to say what you think I’m trying to say.
I see you putting brackets around the multiplication to make sure it gets done first - same as if you hadn’t used brackets at all! It’s the exact same notation we use now, just with some redundant brackets added to it! And, predictably, you left the addition for last.
All I did was use the expression necessary to evaluate correctly with the altered order of operations. There are, in fact, times when you can remove brackets that you would otherwise need, for example (x+4)(x-2) would no longer need brackets. The fact that “old” expressions often have to be written with new brackets to evaluate correctly with an altered order of operations is something I fully understand. The presence of brackets where there would be none otherwise does not invalidate my point.
15²+50²=15x15+50x50=15x65x50=48,750. But 15²+50² is 2,725 according to my calculator. Ooooh, different answers - I wonder which one is right… I wonder which one is right…???
What? I never wrote 15²+50². That is an expression you copied incorrectly. Your incorrectly copied expression has little relevance to the problem at hand.
Ok, fine… If I have 1 2 litre bottle of milk, and 4 3 litre bottles of milk - i.e. 2+3x4 - how many litres of milk do I have?
If we were doing math with an altered order of operations, the expression 2+3x4 is just simply wrong. 2+(3x4) is the expression you need. If you try to do math the same as it is with the regular order of operations, it will not work. But that does not mean math with an altered order of operations is useless. It is still math. It can still be used to “study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets using numbers and symbols”.
I fully understand that to correctly evaluate an expression written with a certain order of operations in mind, you need to use that order of operations. If someone wrote an expression with a different order of operations in mind, you could solve it with a different order of operations and still get what the author of the expression intended. For example, I write the equation a+2xa-2 with my order of operations, expecting you to use the same order of operations, and tell you to simplify. If you get 3a-2, that is wrong, because you used an order of operations different than the one I intended to be used to solve the problem. Imagine, for a moment, an alternate universe where everyone uses a different order of operations and a+2xa-2 simplifies to a^2-4. All I am trying to say is that that their math, with a different order of operations, would be no less useful then our math.
In summary, my only claim is that you can still use a different order of operations to manipulate numbers and solve real world problems.
Waiting on a proof from you.
I wrote and evaluated all of those expressions in my last comment with a different order of operations in mind, and was still able to come to the correct answer.
It’s only a wrong answer if you use the same expression you would with the standard order of operations. And I’m not saying we can randomly start interpreting 5 as four, just that there is no law of the universe that makes 5 look like that, and we could theoretically (not practically ofc) switch the definitions of the symbols 5 and 4 if we did it all at once and revised old math expressions to match the new standard. Just as there is no reason the letters “bike” mean what they do other than that’s what someone decided to call it, there is no reason the order of operations is what it is other than that is how someone decided to write it.
Scratch doesn’t even have an order of operations. You can still do math in it.
I’m not saying you can take any expression and get the same answer by doing addition before multiplication. I’m saying you can take any problem and get the correct answer by doing addition before multiplication. In your milk example, that means I would use the expression 2+(3x4) because 2+3x4 is no longer the correct expression needed to solve the problem.
(For an example of my distinction of the words “expression” and “problem”, “(4x)+2” is an expression, and “I start with 2 litres of milk. For every dollar I spend, I get 4 more liters of milk. How much milk do I have?” is a problem.)
My argument also relies on a distinction between the language of modern math and the concept of doing math, defining math as the dictionary definition of “The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols”. As you can see, this makes no mention of the notation commonly used in math. All I am saying is that you can still use numbers to solve problems with an altered order of operations, or by altering any part of the system of notation.
Perhaps seeing how I could solve a problem with a different order of operations will help illustrate my argument:
Problem: 2 cars approach an interchange at a 90 degree angle to each other. Car A approaches the station from 15 meters away at 30 meters/second and Car B approaches the station from 50 meters away at 20 meters/second. How fast is the distance between the cars decreasing?
Answer: the rate of change of the distance between the cars is approximately -27.777 meters per second.
As you can see, I used my altered math notation to find the correct answer. I can still solve a real-world problem with this notation, but the same expressions you would use before may not work now.
Really? You want to do that again? Ok, fine… If I have 1 2 litre bottle of milk, and 4 3 litre bottles of milk - i.e. 2+3x4 - how many litres of milk do I have?
The definition of 5 as being 1+1+1+1+1 has nothing to do with order of operations.
No, but there is a rule of Maths which defines it.
In other words everything would be the same as now but we just switched the notation around. I already said that to you a while back. Now you’re getting it.
Got nothing to do with how it’s written - Maths is written differently in many different countries, and yet the underlying order of operations rules are universal.
And if it’s not the same answer then it’s wrong. You’re nearly had it.
And I told you you can’t. Waiting on a proof from you. Start with 2+3x4 - show me how you can get the correct answer by doing addition first - it’s a nice simple one. :-)
They’re literally the same thing.
And I told you that it’s impossible. Changing the notation doesn’t change the Maths.
BWAHAHAHAHA! Nope! I see you putting brackets around the multiplication to make sure it gets done first - same as if you hadn’t used brackets at all! It’s the exact same notation we use now, just with some redundant brackets added to it! And, predictably, you left the addition for last.
Ok, let’s take your example and do addition first (like you claimed can be done)…
15²+50²=15x15+50x50=15x65x50=48,750. But 15²+50² is 2,725 according to my calculator. Ooooh, different answers - I wonder which one is right… I wonder which one is right…???
Thanks for proving it can only be done by following the order of operations rules (just like I’ve been saying to you all along). Bye now.
I"m beginning to wonder if you are willfully misunderstanding my point. Or perhaps you have sunk so much time into this argument you assume I must be wrong. Take another look at my third and fifth paragraphs. I promise, I am not trying to say what you think I’m trying to say.
All I did was use the expression necessary to evaluate correctly with the altered order of operations. There are, in fact, times when you can remove brackets that you would otherwise need, for example (x+4)(x-2) would no longer need brackets. The fact that “old” expressions often have to be written with new brackets to evaluate correctly with an altered order of operations is something I fully understand. The presence of brackets where there would be none otherwise does not invalidate my point.
What? I never wrote 15²+50². That is an expression you copied incorrectly. Your incorrectly copied expression has little relevance to the problem at hand.
If we were doing math with an altered order of operations, the expression 2+3x4 is just simply wrong. 2+(3x4) is the expression you need. If you try to do math the same as it is with the regular order of operations, it will not work. But that does not mean math with an altered order of operations is useless. It is still math. It can still be used to “study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets using numbers and symbols”.
I fully understand that to correctly evaluate an expression written with a certain order of operations in mind, you need to use that order of operations. If someone wrote an expression with a different order of operations in mind, you could solve it with a different order of operations and still get what the author of the expression intended. For example, I write the equation a+2xa-2 with my order of operations, expecting you to use the same order of operations, and tell you to simplify. If you get 3a-2, that is wrong, because you used an order of operations different than the one I intended to be used to solve the problem. Imagine, for a moment, an alternate universe where everyone uses a different order of operations and a+2xa-2 simplifies to a^2-4. All I am trying to say is that that their math, with a different order of operations, would be no less useful then our math.
In summary, my only claim is that you can still use a different order of operations to manipulate numbers and solve real world problems.
I wrote and evaluated all of those expressions in my last comment with a different order of operations in mind, and was still able to come to the correct answer.