Glitch in the matrix - eviltoast
  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I think one could argue a coefficient on an unknown variable, like 2y, should take higher priority simply because it cannot be any further resolved or simplified. That is not the case with, say, 2(3+1). Although that does still leave you with potential ambiguity with division/multiplication, such has 1/7y. Is the coefficient 7, or is it 1/7? i.e. Is that 1/(7y)? Or (1/7)y? Either way, if that’s not the the standard understood by everyone, then it is a non-standard, inconsistent rule. And as demonstrated, if you do use that rule, it needs to be more clearly defined. That is the source of this “ambiguity”. If you don’t include it, the order of operations rules, as written, are clear.

    • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I agree it needs to be more clearly defined, but one of the reasons it wasn’t clearly defined was because mathematicians thought it was so universal it didn’t need defining, like how parentheses work to begin with.

      Casio tried not doing umplicit multiplication after some american teachers complained, then went back to doing it after everyone else complained. Implicit multiplication is the standard.

    • 2y, should take higher priority simply because it cannot be any further resolved or simplified

      Bingo!

      That is not the case with, say, 2(3+1)

      It’s the same thing, where y=3+1.

      1/7y. Is the coefficient 7, or is it 1/7? i.e. Is that 1/(7y)

      Yes, it’s 1/(7y) as per the definition of Terms.

      Either way, if that’s not the the standard understood by everyone

      It’s the standard in literally every Maths textbook.