/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9688973
I did, what's wrong with it?

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/user_ed/2014/08/05/the-origin-of-the-order-of-operations/

Parentheses make sense, it shows a self contained equation nested within a bigger equation that should be solved seperately before it joins the rest.

But if that is really the case then in a perfect world every complex mathproblem would be an un-overseeable mass of brackets requiring careful colour coding so you wouldn't confuse them.

It is stulid though, my teachers always said Multiplication/Division themselves, and Addition/Subtraction themselves were freely interchangeable, but its stupid since
4÷2×3 gives two results depending on what you follow. Either 6 or 0.66—
PEDMAS OR PEMDAS. I suppose you can argue left to right, but then the people _making_ the equations also. Should take this into account.

>>9689073
You always work left to right when evaluating operations with equal priority. The correct answer is 6.

who the fuck decided that the symbol for multiplication should be 'x'? then when they start teaching algebra kids have to unlearn that shit and assume x is a variable, and that multiplication is now a point.

It can be summed up with two rules:

-Perform operations in descending order in accordance with the hyperoperation sequence.
-Parentheses are literally there to denote order of operations.

What really seems to confuse brainlets is multiplication by juxtaposition:
6 / 2x = (6 / 2) * x = (6 * x) / 2
6 / 2x = 6 / (2 * x)

(6 * x) / 2 ≠ 6 / (2 * x)

...x = (1 + 2)

>>9688973
why can't we just get rid of subtraction and consider it as addition of the inverse?

>>9689093
Substituting x for 1 in that equation of yours works fine, but anything else breaks it. "2x" is a term, and you are literally just denoting a value that as it changes, will always be observed in the equation immediately as twice that of itself before any operations are to be done to it.
You can apply actions to terms as long as it affects the entire equation. I can divide "6/2x" by 2 and get "3/x", bur saying (6/2)*x = (6*x)/2 is wrong because you are attempting to solve part of a self-contained term with an integer that it does not belong to.
2 must be multiplied with x before it can be solved against the 6. If you cant, then reduce to 3/x.
6/(2*x) is correct, and saying it is ≠ to the earlier statement is a tautology since one doesn't do that anyway.

>>9689164
That is essentially what the subtraction symbol attempts to show. 5 - 6 is just 5+(-6), but it uses less brackets.

>>9689164
This is some high quality bait
you even hooked a fishy>>9689179
well done

>>9689164
You can.
If you work in the integers, then the only operation you need is multiplication.

In general, the only thing you care about is that the norm of a ring is defined so that n(ab) = n(a)n(b). This guarantees that an inverse exists for all members of the ring (except sometimes, the identity element).

Historically though, algebra was developed on the naturals, so division and subtraction were necessary.

>>9688973
Because higher priority operations are just substitutes for lower priority ones more times, that's kind of their point.
2+2+2 = 3*2
2*2*2 = 2^3
So 2+3*2 = 2+2+2+2

>>9689430
Yeah, exactly this. One can define the naturals, and the sum and product operations within them as follows:

- The number [math]1[/math] is in the set of natural numbers, [math]\mathbb{N}[/math].
- [math]s(n)[/math] is defined as the successor of [math]n[/math], [math]\forall n \in \mathbb{N}[/math]. e.g. [math]3 = s(s(1))[/math]
- The addition [math]n+k[/math], with [math]n, k \in \mathbb{N}[/math] is shorthand for applying the function [math]s[/math] to [math]n[/math], [math]k[/math] times. e.g. [math]1+3 = s(s(s(1)))[/math]
- The product [math]n*k[/math], with [math]n, k \in \mathbb{N}[/math] is shorthand for adding [math]n[/math] to itself, [math]k[/math] times. e.g. [math]3*3 = 3+3+3[/math]
- The power [math]n^k[/math], with [math]n, k \in \mathbb{N}[/math] is shorthand for multiplying [math]n[/math] by itself, [math]k[/math] times. e.g. [math]3^3 = 3*3*3[/math]

A similar construction can be done in [math]\mathbb{Z}[/math] or [math]\mathbb{R}[/math]. Since the parentheses merely note that a portion of the expression must be evaluated first, and division can be defined in terms of multiplication just as substraction can be defined in terms of addition, the order of operations makes perfect sense.

>>9688973
Idk, someone, but it makes sense to me, so I like it

>>9688973
We could just use prefix or postfix notation and eliminate all ambiguity.

>>9689223
>then the only operation you need is multiplication

How is division account for?

>>9689057
I'm pretty sure I saw papers from the 1850's where things were already fixed. That article post implies it's mostly just a few decades old.

>>9689164
because your alternative requires the extra step of generating the inverse before you can add it.

>>9689073
Even the most complex formualas or messy results I've seen use fractions and parenthesis when needed.

>>9689073
change the divided by 2 into a multiple by 1/2 to see why you are a brainlet

>>9689073
I think it s because division doesnt "exist" like 4÷2x3 = 4/2 x3 = 3x 4/2 /=/ 3x4÷2
It s only these numbers with bars
Same for addition or soustraction it doesnt "exist" it s the sign of a number like 4-3+2 = +2+4-3 /=/ 2-4+3

÷ is gay and should never be used.

>>9689057
>Whose fault is it? =^)
FUCKING NORMIES STOP STEALING MY FUCKING MEMES REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>9689875
>We could just use prefix or postfix notation and eliminate all ambiguity.
^^^This, all other answers are retarded.

>>9689091
= = two sticks of equal length, measured against each other to check
+ = two sticks added together
- = now one is gone
÷ = a measurement along the existing length of the stick
× = like + but next level

It's only a method for evaluating shorthand in a uniform way. If you were to completely write out the sequence as much as possible there would be no ambiguity

>>9689877
multiply by the inverse

>>9688973
>Fuck this, whoever decided this was the correct order?
More importantly, who decided the order of the alphabet?
Was it the lizard people? The greys? Illuminati?

>>9689073
>un-overseeable mass of brackets requiring careful colour coding so you wouldn't confuse them.
That's what multi-line indention is for,
Do you even computer?

>>9689088
>You always work left to right when evaluating operations with equal priority.
Nope.
Some (but not all) programming languages do this.
According to the nuns at Sacred Heart, if you have to rely on L2R vs R2L, the equation is ambiguous, and thus invalid.

>>9688973
((((Parentheses))))

>>9691239
XD LE MAYMAY EVOLUTION AMIRITE
ALL UR BAES R BELONG TO US X)
son i are disappoint xD

>>9691265
>>>/plebbit/

>>9691265
Quit posting

>>9691265
stop posting, nigger

>>9691265
ganna call you a nigger just for the sake of it

nigger

>>9689927
>1646
>few decades

choose one

>>9691289
>>9691294
>>9691350
>>9691361
>defending your memeposting this hard
Samefag detected.