Yes, she votes, as do millions just like her
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
This is a grammar problem rather than a math problem and grammatically the form "x(y)" is more useful if it is short hand for "(x * (y))" rather than "x * (y)". I don't think there's any situation where the latter would be more useful.
e: This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCDca6dYpA has an alternative interpretation as to why it would be 1. 6/2(1+2) should be (6)/(2(1+2)) because if you wanted the PEMDAS compliant version you'd write 6(1+2)/2 so this shorthand makes sense. She finds many examples in textbooks and lectures that support this usage. One example was mn/rs being used for (n/s)(m/r) because if you wanted ((mn)/r)*s)) you would just mns/r which is much clearer. This isn't math; it's notation; and useful notation wins; PEDMAS is an oversimplification taught to school children. The formalization of this more useful rule is that multiplication by juxtaposition has a higher precedence than division.
I found this odd thing that helps show why this provokes disagreement:
https://www.autodidacts.io/disorder-of-operations/
In this fellow's view, following "always left to right" as an imperative second only to PEMDAS, he would state firmly that the answer to this equation is 9.
However, in his own bullet point 4, he references "Implied Multiplication" (also known as "Multiplication denoted by juxtaposition," even going so far as to cite it 3 times as an academically strong convention and a common standard practice.
Then...he just sort of discards it. For no clear reason. With "Implied Multiplication," the answer is 1. Without it, 9. The only argument he gives against using the academic standard is that "Most decent calculators have no truck for it, and doggedly follow the left-to-right order for division and multiplication."
Then, he...doggedly follows the left-to-right order himself. Bizarre. By using the word "doggedly," he seems to imply the calculator's method is inappropriately rigid. But that's the horse he backs anyway, giving no other reason for discarding implied multiplication.
And here we are! Absolutely nowhere.
That's my conclusion as well.