Believe what you like.

Same as all Mathematicians, textbooks and proofs.

Including that all mathematics communication and education is flawless and incapable of any ambiguity, apparently

Yep

made you decide that insulting my intelligence was the best way to have this conversation

you were the one who decided to refuse to look in Maths textbooks 🙄

Actual math educators, on the other hand, are moving away from using the “PEMDAS” (or “BEDMAS”) acronyms

No they aren't.

because of the ambiguity inherent in them

There isn't any ambiguity in them 🙄

using “GEMS” (or “GEMA”) instead

Nope. No Maths textbooks are using that.

the acronym must not be all that useful.

And if that is true, then GEMA would be completely useless 🙄

You’re trying to make me mad,

No I'm not.

Again–have a good one

Again, you still couldn't provide a shred of evidence to support your argument

I don’t want to make this a “gotcha”, but you say no xaml knowledge needed but then talk about it and have the reader touch them (mostly delete).

I only have them delete the XAML files. You don't need to know anything about what's inside a file to delete it 😂 Also, I only talk about the benefits of getting rid of them, which also doesn't require any knowledge of XAML.

You say you usually delete this xaml file but I don’t need to do that. Why?

No I don't! I say disabling implicit usings is optional, and do explain why I do it, then delete the XAML files. You seem to have conflated 2 successive paragraphs.

I thought I didn’t need to know xaml?

You don't. They're never used anywhere in the whole thing. We only delete the XAML files, then replace them with C#.

I read your entire tutorial.

Not very carefully apparently.

that you already put in more effort than one can expect by writing a tutorial to begin with

Nope. If a job is worth doing, it's worth doing well.

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.

The y(n+1) is same as yn + y

No, it's the same as (yn+y). You can't remove brackets unless there is only 1 term left inside.

if you removed the “6÷” part. It’s

...The Distributive Law.

If they weren’t ambiguous, then you wouldn’t see them getting popular

#MathsIsNeverAmbiguous They get popular because people who don't remember all the rules of Maths want to argue with the people who do remember all the rules of Maths. #DontForgetDistribution

different systems of infix notation

There's not different rules of Maths though, and the people "debating" the answer are those who don't remember all the rules.

people don’t really use the ÷ symbol in algebra beyond like 6th grade

Yes they do, just pick up a high school Maths textbook (in a country which uses obelus rather than colon).

And "Multiplication" refers literally to multiplication signs, of which there are none in this question.

2(4) is not exactly same as 2x4

Correct! It's exactly the same as (2x4).

if you see a number butted up against an expression in parentheses you assume there is a multiplication symbol there

No, it means it's a Term (product). If a=2 and b=3, then axb=2x3, but ab=6.

I was taught 2(2+2)==2*(2+2)

2(2+2)==(2*(2+2)). More precisely, The Distributive Law says that 2(2+2)=(2x2+2x2).

8÷2(2+2) comes out to 16, not 1

No, it's 1, and only 1. Order of operations thread index

P.S. this is Year 7 Maths, not Year 1.