• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Different compilers have robbed me of all trust in order-of-operations. If there’s any possibility of ambiguity - it’s going in parentheses. If something’s fucky and I can’t tell where, well, better parenthesize my equations, just in case.

  • Pavidus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    There’s quite a few calculators that get this wrong. In college, I found out that Casio calculators do things the right way, are affordable, and readily available. I stuck with it through the rest of my classes.

    • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Casio does a wonderful job, and it’s a shame they aren’t more standard in American schooling. Texas Instruments costs more of the same jobs, and is mandatory for certain systems or tests. You need to pay like $40 for a calculator that hasn’t changed much if at all from the 1990’s.

      Meanwhile I have a Casio fx-115ES Plus and it does everything that one did, plus some nice quality of life features, for less money.

      • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        If you’re lucky, you can find these TI calculators in thrift shops or other similar places. I’ve been lucky since I got both of my last 2 graphing calculators at a yard sale and thrift shop respectively, for maybe around $40-$50 for both.

  • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    For anyone like me who has math as their worst subject: PEMDAS.

    PEMDAS is an acronym used to mention the order of operations to be followed while solving expressions having multiple operations. PEMDAS stands for P- Parentheses, E- Exponents, M- Multiplication, D- Division, A- Addition, and S- Subtraction.

    So we gotta do it in the proper order. And remember, if the number is written like 2(3) then its multiplication, as if it was written 2 x 3 or 2 * 3.

    So we read 8/2(2+2) and need to do the following;

    • Read the Parentheses of (2 + 2) and follow the order of operations within them, which gets us 4.
    • Then we do 2(4) which is the same as 2 x 4 which is 8
    • 8 / 8 is 1.

    The answer is 1. The old calculator is correct, the phone app which has ads backed into it for a thing that all computers were invented to do is inaccurate.

    • a_fine_hound@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Well that’s just wrong… Multiplication and division have equal priorities so they are done from left to right. So: 8 / 2 * (2 + 2)=8 / 2 * 4=4 * 4=16

      • nutcase2690@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not quite, pemdas can go either from the left or right (as long as you are consistent) and division is the same priority as multiplication because dividing by something is equal to multiplying by the inverse of that thing… same as subtraction being just addition but you flip the sign.

        8×1/2=8/2 1-1=1+(-1)

        The result is 16 if you rewrite the problem with this in mind: 8÷2(2+2)=8×(1/2)×(2+2)

    • onion@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      No it’s ambiguous, you claiming there is one right answer is actually wrong.

  • sunbather@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    8÷2(2+2)=2(2+2)÷2(2+2)

    alternatively if 8÷2(2+2)=16 that means 2(2+2)=8÷16 in other words 8=0,5 which it isnt

    • rasensprenger@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      your first line is correct, but while it looks like 1 (and it might be under different conventions), evaluating according to standard rules (left to right if not disambiguated by pemdas) yields

      2(2+2)/2(2+2) = 2(4)/2(4) = 2*4/2*4 = 8/2*4 = 4*4 = 16

      Using implicit multiplication in quotients is weird and really shouldn’t happen, this would usually be written as 8/(2*(2+2)) or 8/2*(2+2) and both are much clearer

      Your second argument only works if you treat 2(2+2) as a single “thing”, which it looks like, but isn’t, in this case

      • sunbather@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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

  • Elderos@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    In some countries we’re taught to treat implicit multiplications as a block, as if it was surrounded by parenthesis. Not sure what exactly this convention is called, but afaic this shit was never ambiguous here. It is a convention thing, there is no right or wrong as the convention needs to be given first. It is like arguing the spelling of color vs colour.

  • arisunz@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    this comment section illustrates perfectly why i hate maths so much lmao

    love ambiguous, confusing rules nobody can even agree on!

    • onion@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      The problem isn’t math, it’s the people that suck at at it who write ambigous terms like this, and all the people in the comments who weren’t educated properly on what conventions are.