Ok bro so answer my question
Deflection is the word you're looking for
what’s the result of the expression I wrote above?
So... you're telling me you don't know what comes first out of Brackets and Exponents in order of operations? That's your deflection strategy??
I have said why this style of debate is bad in greater detail here: https://lemmy.world/post/39377635/21030374
Which I debunked here
no it is not a step in PE(MD)(AS)
So... you're saying the "P" step in PEMDAS isn't a step in PEMDAS?? This is hilarious given you were just talking about contradictions 😂
Again, you have not understood my point
Maybe because saying the "P" step in PEMDAS isn't a step in PEMDAS makes no sense at all 😂
you categorically fail to engage with any argument.
No, I comprehensively debunked all of your points and deflections. 😂
I don’t think you even understand what it means to do so
says person who keeps avoiding the textbook screenshots and worked examples proving them wrong
I will not respond further to either thread
Yay! Don't let the door hit you on the way out 😂
I really want to have a good discussion about this
says person who deleted their previous post when I proved how wrong it was 😂
it is not possible with your debate style
There's no debate - the rules are in Maths textbooks, which you want to pretend don't exist
You fail to understand the argument your opponent is making
You haven't got one. That's why you keep pretending Maths textbooks don't exist
By divorcing each partial statement from its surrounding context
says person who deleted one of their posts to remove the context. 😂 The context is the rules of Maths, in case you needed to be reminded 😂
you are likely to change its meaning
Nope. I'm still talking about the rules of Maths 😂
You are not making a point of your own
Ok, so here you are admitting to comprehension problems. Which part did you not understand in addition and subtraction can be done in any order? 😂
You are simply stating facts, opinions, or misunderstandings as if they are self-evidently true
You left out backing it up with textbook screenshots and worked examples 😂
without knowing why you believe them to be true.
There's no belief involved. It's easy enough to prove it yourself by doing the Maths 😂
it’s very easy to state two contradictory things without realizing it
And yet I never have. Why do you think that is? 😂
“No they can’t. The rules are universal”
Which is correct
“It’s only a convention, not a rule, as just proven”
Which is also correct, and in no way contradicts the previous point, and I have no idea why you think it does! 😂 The first point is about the rules, and the second point is about conventions, which isn't even the same thing
this also makes it hard for people to find the mistakes
That's because I'm not making any 😂
I can see that you don’t fully understand what I mean by “operator precedence”
Says person who in their other post claimed "addition first" for -1+3+2 is -(1+3+2) = -6, and not +(3+2)-1=4 😂
If your opponent also used this debate style,
Which you don't, given you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your points with 😂
ends up entirely divorced from the initial meaning
I've been on-point the whole time, and you keep trying to deflect from how wrong your statements are 😂
Please do not take these as insults
Well, obviously not, given I just proved they were all wrong 😂
allows you to understand why people know the brackets matter.
Except I've proven, repeatedly, that they don't, and so now you're trying to deflect from that (and deleted one of your posts to hide the evidence of how wrong you are) 😂
Some other pedantic notes you may find interesting
It's hilarious that you added in this in afterwards, hoping I wouldn't see it so you could claim the last word 😂
There is no “correct answer” to an expression without defining the order of operations on that expression
There is only one order of operations, defined in many Maths textbooks.
Addition, subtraction, etc. are mathematical necessities that must work the way they do
Hence the order of operations rules, found in Maths textbooks
But PE(MD)(AS) is something we made up
PEMDAS actually, and yes, it's only a convention, not the rules themselves
there is no actual reason why that must be the operator precedence rule we use
That's why it's only a convention, and not a rule.
this is what causes issues with communicating about these things.
Nope, doesn't cause any issues - the rules themselves are the same everywhere, and all of the different mnemonics all work
Your second example, -1+3+2=4, actually opens up an interesting can of worms
No it doesn't
so subtraction is a-b
Just -b actually
negation is -c
Which is still subtraction, from 0, because every operation on the numberline starts from 0, we just don't bother writing the zero (just like we don't bother writing the + sign when the expression starts with an addition).
a two-argument definition of subtraction
Subtraction is unary operator, not binary. If you're subtracting from another number, then that number has it's own operator that it's associated with (and might be an unwritten +), it's not associated with the subtraction at all.
you can also define -1 as a single symbol
No you can't. You can put it in Brackets to make it joined to the minus sign though, like in (-1)²=1, as opposed to -1²=-1
not as a negation operation followed by a positive one
The 1 can't be positive if it follows a minus sign - it's the rule of Left Associativity 😂
These distinctions are for the most part pedantic formalities
No, they're just you spouting more wrong stuff 😂
you could argue that -1+3+2 evaluated with addition having a higher precedence than subtraction is -(1+3+2) = -6
No, you can't. Giving addition a higher priority is +(3+2)-1=+5-1=4, as per Maths textbooks...
Isn’t that interesting?
No, all of it was wrong, again 😂
Was anyone else ever taught it as BOMDAS as opposed to BODMAS?
I don't think so, and I've seen Maths textbooks from all over the world. Only the U.S. wants to reverse the order of DM from everyone else's acronym. 🙄
The multiplication is implied
No it's not. It's explicitly The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac). There is no Multiplication
So, brackets: (8-5) is 3
No, it's 5(8-5)=15
Multiplication
There is no Multiplication. Only Addition and Brackets (and Subtraction inside Brackets).
It’s true you resolve what’s inside the parentheses first, giving you. 8÷2(4) or 8÷2x4.
Not "inside parenthesis" (Primary School, when there's no coefficient), "solve parentheses" (High School, The Distributive Law). Also 8÷2(4)=8÷(2x4) - prematurely removing brackets is how a lot of people end up with the wrong answer (you can't remove brackets unless there is only 1 term left inside).
The order of operations is made from consensus.
No it isn't. It's a natural consequence of the definitions in the first place. e.g. 2x3 is shorthand for 2+2+2, so if you don't do multiplication before addition then you get the wrong answer, hence the order of operations rules.
Mathematical notation however can be.
Nope. Different regions use different symbols, but within those regions everyone knows what each symbol is, and none of those symbols are in this question anyway.
Because it’s conventions as long as it’s not defined on the same page
The rules can be found in any high school Maths textbook.
But it isn’t “correct”
It is correct - it's The Distributive Law.
it’s one of two standard ways of doing it.
There's only 1 way - the "other way" was made up by people who don't remember The Distributive Law and/or Terms (more likely both), and very much goes against the standards.
The ambiguity in the question is
...zero.
Microsoft lessons are like this...