11
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
11 points (92.3% liked)
Technology
73700 readers
1689 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So order of operations is hard?
The issue normally with these "trick" questions is the ambiguous nature of that division sign (not so much a problem here) or people not knowing to just go left to right when all operators are of the same priority. A common mistake is to think division is prioritised above multiplication, when it actually has the same priority. Someone should have included some parenthesis in PEDMAS aka. PE(DM)(AS) 😄
Another common issue is thinking "parentheses go first" and then beginning by solving the operation beside them (mostly multiplication). The point being that what's inside the parentheses goes first, not what's beside them.
There's no "think" - it's an absolute rule.
a(b) isn't an operation - it's a Product. a(b)=(axb) per The Distributive Law.
NOT Multiplication, a Product/Term.
Nope, it's the WHOLE Bracketed Term. a/bxc=ac/b, but a/b( c )=a/(bxc). Inside is only a "rule" in Elementary School, when there isn't ANYTHING next to them (students aren't taught this until High School, in Algebra), and it's not even really a rule then, it's just that there isn't anything ELSE involved in the Brackets step than what is inside (since they're never given anything on the outside).
There's no "trick" - it's a straight-out test of Maths knowledge.
Nothing ambiguous about it. The Term on the left divided by the Term on the right.
It's not a mistake. You can do them in any order you want.
Which means you can do them in any order
The same priority operations can be done in any order without affecting the result, that's why they can be same priority and don't need an explicit order.
6 × 4 ÷ 2 × 3 ÷ 9 evaluates the same regardless of order. Can you provide a counter example?
Another person already replied using your equation, but I felt the need to reply with a simpler one as well that shows it:
9-1+3=?
Subtraction first:
8+3=11
Addition first:
9-4=5
Nope. Addition first is 9+3-1=12-1=11. You did 9-(1+3), incorrectly adding brackets and changing the answer (thus a wrong answer)
So let's try out some different prioritization systems.
Left to right:
Right to left:
Multiplication first:
Here the path divides again, we can do the left division or right division first.
And finally division first:
It's ambiguous which one of these is correct. Hence the best method we have for "correct" is left to right.
I stand corrected
No, you weren't. Most of their answers were wrong. You were right. See my reply. 4 is the only correct answer, and if you don't get 4 then you did something wrong, as they did repeatedly (kept adding brackets and thus changing the Associativity).
Nope! 6 × 4 ÷ 2 × 3 ÷ 9 =4 right to left is 6 ÷ 9 x 3 ÷ 2 × 4 =4. You disobeyed the rule of Left Associativity, and your answer is wrong
Also nope. Multiplication first is 6 x 4 x 3 ÷ 2 ÷ 9 =4
Still nope. 6 × 4 x 3 ÷ 2 ÷ 9 =4
Still nope. 6 × 4 x 3 ÷ 9 ÷ 2 =4
And finally still nope. 6 ÷ 9 ÷ 2 x 4 x 3 =4
Hint: note that I never once added any brackets. You did, hence your multiple wrong answers.
No it isn't. Only 4 is correct, as I have just shown repeatedly.
It's because students don't make mistakes with signs if you don't change the order. I just showed you can still get the correct answer with different orders, but you have to make sure you obey Left Associativity at every step.
Maybe I'm wrong but the way I explain it is until the ambiguity is removed by adding in extra information to make it more specific then all those answers are correct.
"I saw her duck"
Until the author gives me clarity then that sentence has multiple meanings. With math, it doesn't click for people that the equation is incomplete. In an English sentence, ambiguity makes more sense and the common sense approach would be to clarify what the meaning is
There isn't any ambiguity.
No, only 1 answer is correct, and all the others are wrong.
Maths isn't English and doesn't have multiple meanings. It has rules. Obey the rules and you always get the right answer.
It isn't incomplete.
100% with you. "Left to right" as far as I can tell only exists to make otherwise "unsolvable" problems a kind of official solution. I personally feel like it is a bodge, and I would rather the correct solution for such a problem to be undefined.
It's so we don't have to spam brackets everywhere
9+2-1+6-4+7-3+5=
Becomes
((((((9+2)-1)+6)-4)+7)-3)+5=
That's just clutter for no good reason when we can just say if it doesn't have parentheses it's left to right. Having a default evaluation order makes sense and means we only need parentheses when we want to deviate from the norm.
No it isn't. The order of operations rules were around for several centuries before we even started using Brackets in Maths.
It was literally never written like that
That has always been the case
You're literally arguing nothing right now. THEY took the position we should have brackets defining the order in every single equation or otherwise have them as undefined TODAY. It doesn't matter when they were invented. Obviously it's never been written like that. They are the one arguing it SHOULD BE. I said that would be stupid vs following the left to right convention already established. You're getting caught up in the semantics of the wording.
What you inferred: they're saying brackets were always around and we chose left to right to avoid bracket mess.
What I was actually saying: we chose and continue to choose to keep using the left to right convention over brackets everywhere because it would be unnecessary and make things more cluttered.
And yes, that IS a position mathematicians COULD have chosen once brackets WERE invented. They could have decided we should use them in every equation for absolute clarity of order. Saying we should not do that based on tradition alone is a bad reason.
The "always been the case" argument could justify any legacy system. We don't still use Roman numerals for arithmetic just because they were traditional. Things DO change.
Ancient Greeks and Romans strongly resisted zero as a concept, viewing it as philosophically problematic. Negative numbers were even more controversial with many mathematicians into the Renaissance calling them "fictitious" or "absurd numbers." It took centuries for these to become accepted as legitimate mathematical objects.
Before Robert Recorde introduced "=" in 1557, mathematicians wrote out "is equal to" in words. Even after its introduction, many resisted it for decades, preferring verbal descriptions or other symbols.
I could go on but if you're going to argue why something shouldn't be the case, you should argue more than "it's tradition" or "we've done fine without it so far". Because they did fine with many things in mathematics until they decided they needed to change or expand it.
Who's this mysterious "THEY" you are referring to, because I can assure you that the history of Maths tells you that is wrong. e.g. look in Cajori and you'll find the order of operations rules are at least 2 centuries older than the use of Brackets in Maths.,
The rules haven't changed since then.
...and watch Physicists and Mathematicians promptly run out of room on blackboards if they did.
No, you're making up things that never happened.
and that's wrong. Left to right was around before Brackets were.
and you're wrong, because that choice was made before we'd even started using Brackets in Maths, by at least a couple of centuries.
They've always been un-necessary, unless you want to deviate from the normal order of operations.
But they didn't, because we already had clarity over order, and had done for several centuries.
Got nothing to do with tradition. Got no idea where you got that idea from.
The order of operations rules don't, and the last change to the notation was in the 19th Century.
and you'd still be wrong. You're heading off into completely unrelated topics now.
I never said either of those things.
And they changed the meaning of the Division symbol sometime in the 19th Century or earlier, and everything has been settled for centuries now.
The "mysterious" they is HerelAm, the person I was replying to you ninny.
The person who couldn't even manage to get 10-1+1 correct when doing addition first 😂
It's not a rule, it's a convention, and it exists so as to avoid making mistakes with signs, mistakes you made in almost every example you gave where you disobeyed left to right.
The solution accepted anywhere but in the US school system range from "Bloody use parenthesis, then" over "Why is there more than one division in this formula why didn't you re-arrange everything to be less confusing" to "50 Hertz, in base units, are 50s^-1^".
More practically speaking: Ultimately, you'll want to do algebra with these things. If you rely on "left to right" type of precedence rules re-arranging formulas becomes way harder because now you have to contend with that kind of implicit constraint. It makes everything harder for no reason whatsoever so no actual mathematician, or other people using maths in earnest, use that kind of notation.
No, the solution is learn the rules of Maths. You can find them in Maths textbooks, even in U.S. Maths textbooks.
Yes we do, and it's what we teach students to do.
I fully agree that if it comes down to "left to right" the problem really needs to be rewritten to be more clear. But I've just shown why that "rule" is a common part of these meme problems because it is so weird and quite esoteric.
It never does
No you didn't. You showed you didn't understand the rules. Doing addition first for 10-1+1 is 10+1-1, not 10-(1+1). It literally means add all positive numbers together first, which are +10 and +1, as per Maths textbooks...
Note in the above simplification of the coefficients we have 6-11+5-7+2=6+5+2-11-7=13-18=-5, and not, as you claim 6-(11+5)-(7+2)=6-16-9=-19
It's a convention, not a rule, and as such can be completely ignored by those who understand the rules. See literal textbook example
Oh my god now this is going to be Lemmy’s top thread for 6 months, isn’t it?
Btw, yeah I’m with you on this, you just need to know the priorities and you’re good, because the order doesn’t matter for operations with the same priority
Except it does matter. I left some examples for another post with multiplication and division, I'll give you some addition and subtraction to see order matter with those operations as well.
Let's take:
1 + 2 - 3 + 4
Addition first:
(1 + 2) - (3 + 4)
3 - 7 = -4
Subtraction first:
1 + (2 - 3) + 4
1 + (-1) + 4 = 4
Right to left:
1 + (2 - (3 + 4))
1 + (2 - 7)
1 + (-5) = -4
Left to right:
((1 + 2) - 3) + 4
(3 - 3) + 4 = 4
Edit: You can argue that, for example, the addition first could be
(1 + 2) + (-3 + 4)in which case it does end up as 4, but in my opinion that's another ambiguous case.Oh, but of course the statement changes if you add parentheses. Basically, you’re changing the effective numbers that are being used, because the parentheses act as containers with a given value (you even showed the effective numbers in your examples).
Get this : + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1
You can change the result several times by choosing where you want to put the parentheses. However, the order of operations of same priority inside a container (parentheses) does not change the resulting value of the container.
In the example, there were no parentheses, so no ambiguity (there wouldn’t be any ambiguity with parentheses either, the correct way of calculating would just change), and I don’t think you can add “ambiguity” by adding parentheses — you’re just changing the effective expression to be evaluated.
By the way, this is the reason why I absolutely overuse parentheses in my engineering code. It can be redundant, but at least I am SURE that it is going to follow the order that I wanted.
It sure does, but they don't seem to understand that.
No it doesn't. You disobeying the rules and getting lots of wrong answers in your examples doesn't change that.
Which you did wrong.
And I'll show you it doesn't matter when you do it correctly
Nope. Right answer for wrong reason - you only co-incidentally got the answer right. -3+1+2+4=-3+7=4
Nope. 4-3+2+1=1+2+1=3+1=4
Or you could just do it correctly in the first place, always obeying Left Associativity and never adding Brackets
There aren't ANY ambiguous cases. In every case it's equal to 4. If you didn't get 4, then you made a mistake and got a wrong answer.
Not for students it isn't. Adults who've forgotten the rules on the other hand...