Quote:
Originally Posted by winders
...fine if you don't use the convention that says multiplication indicated by juxtaposition is carried out before division. This convention is not uncommon or we would not be having this debate.
|
Mr. Verburg addressed "multiplication indicated by juxtaposition is carried out before division"; see post #557:
"'There is a convention that says you do implicit multiplication before division' is a rule only in your world, it is not a convention recognized anywhere else except in the minds of others that don't understand math."
Quote:
Originally Posted by winders
...I am not arguing that the answer is "2". I am arguing that equation is ambiguous and should not be written the way it is. I am arguing that it is easy to see how many people come up with "2" as the answer.
|
Mr. Verburg also addressed - and denied - the ambiguity issue, agreeing that the equation might have been written to be more quickly grasped:
"I agree that it should and could be written more clearly, nevertheless w/o implementing any new rules or exceptions you get consistent results by following the basic order of operation rules"
Quote:
Originally Posted by winders
...Your position is far too black and white considering the division this equation inspires in the mathematical community.
|
Any "inspired division in the mathematical community" notwithstanding, math IS black and white, understood by using rules that were never, ever, formed by impassioned mathematicians arguing heatedly in committees or in caffeine crazed coffee clatches.
Mr. Verburg addressed this also:
"I agree that there is a lot of controversy but don't see why
people often cite mnemonics like PEMDAS, P - simplify everything inside parenthesis as much as possible, E - exponents, MD - multiply or divide left to right, AS - add or subtract left to right"
Just curious, have you ever had a teacher with the patience of Bill Verburg?
Edit: Oops, Bill finally gave up on you. Oh well, your loss, winders.
