420
submitted 11 months ago by Toes@ani.social to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] sunbather@beehaw.org 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

not much to refute in the argument of whether its 16 or 1 as its all a matter of convention in the end and ultimately the root of the argument is poor formatting of the expression, im used to implicit multiplication taking precedent and that 2(2+2)===2*(2+2) and that for my first argument having the same expression on 2 sides of a division sign automatically equals 1, but how come you find implicit multiplication in quotients weird? seeing as it happens literally all the time in equations, unless thats a difference in school systems or similar im unaware of

for fun also rewrote the expression into powers of 2 and indeed depending on how you go about implicit multiplication i end up with either 2⁰ or 2⁴, so for the sake of sanity i figure its best to just say x₁=1; x₂=16

[-] rasensprenger@feddit.de 3 points 11 months ago

It's weird because usually the people writing the expressions want to communicate clearly, and stuff like 1/2x is not immediately clear to everyone, so they write the 1/2 as a fraction.

The same expression on both sides of the division sign only reduce to one if they actually bind to the division sign, which is rarely an issue, but that is exactly the thing that is in question here. I think it's clear that 1 + 1/1 + 1 is 3, not 1, even though 1+1 = 1+1.

But as you said, of course, the evaluation order is just convention, you can just as well write everything in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation

this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
420 points (100.0% liked)

196

16501 readers
2240 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS