It's a deliberately ambiguous notation. The correct answer is telling the person who wrote it to fix their equation.
And it's not an operator precedence question. It's a question of if multiplication by juxtaposition also implies that the multiplicands are grouped. And that varies on what you're used to seeing in what context. The people who argue that it's pure "PEMDAS" will still read 1/2x as "1 over 2x" and not "one half x." I don't think anyone would read "ab/cd" as ((a*b)/c)*d... though I suppose a programmer with a very light math background might read it as only two variables.
Anyone who gets sucked into lengthy arguments on this is wasting their time.
It's a deliberately ambiguous notation. The correct answer is telling the person who wrote it to fix their equation.
And it's not an operator precedence question. It's a question of if multiplication by juxtaposition also implies that the multiplicands are grouped. And that varies on what you're used to seeing in what context. The people who argue that it's pure "PEMDAS" will still read 1/2x as "1 over 2x" and not "one half x." I don't think anyone would read "ab/cd" as ((a*b)/c)*d... though I suppose a programmer with a very light math background could read it as only two variables.
Anyone who gets sucked into lengthy arguments on this is wasting their time.
It's a deliberately ambiguous notation. The correct answer is telling the person who wrote it to fix their equation.
And it's not an operator precedence question. It's a question of if multiplication by juxtaposition also implies that the multiplicands are grouped. And that varies on what you're used to seeing in what context. The people who argue that it's pure "PEMDAS" will still read 1/2x as "1 over 2x" and not "one half x." I don't think anyone would read "ab/cd" as ((a*b)/c)*d.
Anyone who gets sucked into lengthy arguments on this is wasting their time.
It's a deliberately ambiguous notation. The correct answer is telling the person who wrote it to fix their equation.
And it's not an operator precedence question. It's a question of if multiplication by juxtaposition also implies that the multiplicands are grouped. And that varies on what you're used to seeing in what context. The people who argue that it's pure "PEMDAS" will still read 1/2x as "1 over 2x" and not "one half x."
Anyone who gets sucked into lengthy arguments on this is wasting their time.
It's a deliberately ambiguous notation. The correct answer is telling the person who wrote it to fix their equation.
And it's not an operator precedence question. It's a question of if multiplication by juxtaposition also implies that the multiplicands are grouped. And that varies on what you're used to seeing in what context. The people who argue that it's pure "PEMDAS" will still read 1/2x as "1 over 2x" and not "one half x."
Anyone who gets sucked into arguments on this is wasting their time.
It's a deliberately ambiguous notation. The correct answer is telling the person who wrote it to fix their equation.
And it's not an operator precedence question. It's a question of if multiplication by juxtaposition also implies that the multiplicands are grouped. And that varies on what you're used to seeing in what context. The people who argue that it's pure "PEMDAS" because that's what they learned in 3rd grade will still read 1/2x as "1 over 2x" and not "one half x."
Anyone who gets sucked into arguments on this is wasting their time.
It's a deliberately ambiguous notation. The correct answer is telling the person who wrote it to fix their equation.
And it's not an operator precedence question. It's a question of if multiplication by juxtaposition also implies that the multiplicands are grouped. And that varies on what you're used to seeing in what context. The people who argue that it's pure "PEMDAS" will still read 1/2x as "1 over 2x" and not "one half x."
Anyone who gets sucked into arguments on this is wasting their time.
It's a deliberately ambiguous notation. The correct answer is telling the person who wrote it to fix their equation.