>5(3)
Which fucking retard uses this convention? This is used for uncertainties, 1.23(45) means [math]1.23 pm 0.45[/math], so 5(3) would mean [math]5 pm 3[/math]. Use a multiplication sign of your choice if you want to express multiplication.

In certain contexts it does. In arithmetic it means multiply by whatever is in the parentheses.

>Use a multiplication sign of your choice if you want to express multiplication.
No. I'm not typing x*y*z*n*a*b*c. I'm writing xyznabc because everyone knows what it means and it saves space on the page.

>because most people subconsciously place implied multiplication over regular multiplication and division.
Most people being fuckwits is an argument for better education, not deliberately doing things wrong. What's next, cross multiplication is shit because most people only know dot multiplication?

Placing implied multiplication over regular multiplication and division leads to better readability. >A/BC
Technically A would first be divided over B, >Division and multiplication have the same precedence, so read from left to right
then multiply by C.

But its way more intuitive to do it the other way around.

>Placing implied multiplication over regular multiplication and division leads to better readability.
Not if you know how to read. >But its way more intuitive to do it the other way around.
It's way more intuitive to go right to left?

>its way more intuitive to go right to left?
Thats not what I am saying.
I am saying that placing implied multiplication over regular multiplication and division is more natural.

Doesnt matter if its >ABC
Or >CAB
I believe AB should always be multiplied first in an ideal world

4 weeks ago

Anonymous

>I believe AB should always be multiplied first in an ideal world
What you believe doesn't really have any bearing on what is true. Fuck all about AB indicates it should be read before A÷B, AxB, or A*B.

You want to bitch about PEMDAS, bitch about fractions. ½ and 1÷2 aren't the same thing such that A÷½≠A÷1÷2.

4 weeks ago

Anonymous

>What you believe doesn't really have any bearing on what is true.
Yes it does. This is a notational convention, whatever we all say is true therefore is true.

The misparsing that gives you 21 is a fairly common misconception with the kids I tutor. They don't realize the omitted multiplication sign between 5 and (8-5) is supposed to take priority over the 2+5.

if someone writes 1/ab then it means 1/(ab) because there's no point in writing b/a like that.
I don't care about your gay retarded rules you learned in middle school, I'm talking about real mathematical texts.

>I don't care about your gay retarded rules you learned in middle school
You mean "how to read and write basic arithmetic" >I'm talking about real mathematical texts.
Sounds like the fuckwits writing that shit need to go back to middle school.

if someone writes 1/ab then it means 1/(ab) because there's no point in writing b/a like that.
I don't care about your gay retarded rules you learned in middle school, I'm talking about real mathematical texts.

1/ab is an interesting example because the intended meaning is clear, but it’s hard to write down a simple enough rule that small children and twitter users can follow

No, it is not; that is not the notation that actual mathematicians use. The notation that actual mathematicians use is a bit more subtle than that, and for that reason is generally only taught in simplified form to primary school students; but you would be wise not to confuse the lies-to-children simplification with the real thing.

Physics textbooks tend to use horizontal fraction bars to denote division or otherwise use subscripts and superscripts and fractional slashes. The fuck physics book are you using that not only uses horizontally read division without fractions but also doesn't use a ÷ for that?

Also, how would a/b/c be read if they are doing that grouping bullshit, but aren't fucking using PEMDAS?

Literally the only times I've seen anything like what you described, the books in question had special notation guidelines that complete forbid you even writing shit like a/b/c and gave division and multiplication different priority completely.

And yeah, no shit you can use custom notation, but you have to fucking explain that and that's not going to be universally understood outside of materials associated with that fucking book.

Why would the google calculator have authority?

>Why would the google calculator have authority?
Google it.

The answer is syntax error.

Also, this isn't even ambiguous.

2+5(8-5)

2+5(3)

2+15

17

Parentheses

Exponents

Multiplication

Division

Addition

Subtraction

Use PEMDAS Anon!

>5(3)

Which fucking retard uses this convention? This is used for uncertainties, 1.23(45) means [math]1.23 pm 0.45[/math], so 5(3) would mean [math]5 pm 3[/math]. Use a multiplication sign of your choice if you want to express multiplication.

In certain contexts it does. In arithmetic it means multiply by whatever is in the parentheses.

>Use a multiplication sign of your choice if you want to express multiplication.

No. I'm not typing x*y*z*n*a*b*c. I'm writing xyznabc because everyone knows what it means and it saves space on the page.

For symbols sure, you can omit the sign. [math]F=m,a[/math]. But not for numbers.

your iq is 65(2).

>too retarded to grasp the concept of contexts

Pemdos is shit because most people subconsciously place implied multiplication over regular multiplication and division.

That being 17 is the only correct answer

*that being said, 17 is the only correct answer.

>because most people subconsciously place implied multiplication over regular multiplication and division.

Most people being fuckwits is an argument for better education, not deliberately doing things wrong. What's next, cross multiplication is shit because most people only know dot multiplication?

Placing implied multiplication over regular multiplication and division leads to better readability.

>A/BC

Technically A would first be divided over B,

>Division and multiplication have the same precedence, so read from left to right

then multiply by C.

But its way more intuitive to do it the other way around.

>Placing implied multiplication over regular multiplication and division leads to better readability.

Not if you know how to read.

>But its way more intuitive to do it the other way around.

It's way more intuitive to go right to left?

>its way more intuitive to go right to left?

Thats not what I am saying.

I am saying that placing implied multiplication over regular multiplication and division is more natural.

Doesnt matter if its

>ABC

Or

>CAB

I believe AB should always be multiplied first in an ideal world

>I believe AB should always be multiplied first in an ideal world

What you believe doesn't really have any bearing on what is true. Fuck all about AB indicates it should be read before A÷B, AxB, or A*B.

You want to bitch about PEMDAS, bitch about fractions. ½ and 1÷2 aren't the same thing such that A÷½≠A÷1÷2.

>What you believe doesn't really have any bearing on what is true.

Yes it does. This is a notational convention, whatever we all say is true therefore is true.

It's 17.

PEMDAS

>Parentheses

>Exponents

>Multiplication/Division

>Addition/Subtraction

2+5(8-5)

2+5(3)

2+5*3

2+15

17

If you think the answer is anything else then the education system failed you and I would put money on you being American.

another elementary school thread

The misparsing that gives you 21 is a fairly common misconception with the kids I tutor. They don't realize the omitted multiplication sign between 5 and (8-5) is supposed to take priority over the 2+5.

This isn't even fucking unclear.

if someone writes 1/ab then it means 1/(ab) because there's no point in writing b/a like that.

I don't care about your gay retarded rules you learned in middle school, I'm talking about real mathematical texts.

>I don't care about your gay retarded rules you learned in middle school

You mean "how to read and write basic arithmetic"

>I'm talking about real mathematical texts.

Sounds like the fuckwits writing that shit need to go back to middle school.

1/ab is an interesting example because the intended meaning is clear, but it’s hard to write down a simple enough rule that small children and twitter users can follow

The rule is just PEMDAS. It's simple as fuck.

No, it is not; that is not the notation that actual mathematicians use. The notation that actual mathematicians use is a bit more subtle than that, and for that reason is generally only taught in simplified form to primary school students; but you would be wise not to confuse the lies-to-children simplification with the real thing.

Okay, you're picking a fight with google's built in calculator over how to do basic arithmetic.

You understand the google calculator wins that argument, right?

No, I do not. Please explain.

2+5(8-5)

2+40-25

2+15

17

>2+5*8-5

Obviously its 51

2+5(8-5)

2+5(3)

2+53

55

Public school educated American here, how exactly are you supposed to get 21?

(2+5)(8-5)

2+5(8-5)

2+5*8-5*5

2+40-25

2+15

17

try using BODMAS correctly next time

2+5(8-5)

2+5*3

2+15

=17

>muh mnemonics

try not being a homosexual next time

2 + 5(8-5)

7(8-5)

73

Pshhh!! Use order of operations dumbass!

2 + 5(8 - 5)

2 + 5(3)

2 + 53

55

Watching the bait get worse as the iw of the board lowers is depressing. Back in my day the order of operations bait was actually ambiguous

How about 16⁄2/2⁄4=16?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Also it helps that the calculator in question literally walks you through how to solve the problem step by step. So just look at that explanation.

Why would the google calculator have authority?

Read any physics text book and 1/ab is assumed to be 1/(ab).

1/kT, p^2/2m, 1/2pi, etc

Physics textbooks tend to use horizontal fraction bars to denote division or otherwise use subscripts and superscripts and fractional slashes. The fuck physics book are you using that not only uses horizontally read division without fractions but also doesn't use a ÷ for that?

Also, how would a/b/c be read if they are doing that grouping bullshit, but aren't fucking using PEMDAS?

Literally the only times I've seen anything like what you described, the books in question had special notation guidelines that complete forbid you even writing shit like a/b/c and gave division and multiplication different priority completely.

And yeah, no shit you can use custom notation, but you have to fucking explain that and that's not going to be universally understood outside of materials associated with that fucking book.

>Why would the google calculator have authority?

Google it.

something below or above 20 i think, x2 = 0 uncertain or smth

2+5=7

8-5=3

7(3)=21

Obvious.