this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
519 points (87.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43760 readers
1219 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

There is another example where the pemdas is even better covered than a simple parenthetical multiplication, but the answer there is the same: It's the arbitrary syntax, not the math rules.

You guys are both correct. It's 16 and the problem is a syntax that implies a wrong order of operations. The syntax isn't wrong, either, just implicative in your example and seemingly arbitrary in the other example I wish I remembered.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

not the math rules

If it involves Maths, then it's Maths rules.

It’s 16

It's 1

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Do you not understand that syntax is its own set of rules?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago

Do you not understand that syntax is its own set of rules?

Yes, the rules of Maths, as I was already saying. I'm a Maths teacher. I take it you didn't read the link then.