it’s just about convention aka how to communicate math

They're rules actually.

The author didn’t make themselves clear enough

Yes they did, someone screwed up the answers, just like in this book...

misunderstand what calculation they mean

There's only 1 possible answer to it.

Because division is multiplication

No it isn't.

and subtraction is addition

And you still have to do both

2/2 is the same as 2*½

They're equal in value, they're not the same

2-2 is the same as 2+(-2)

You got that the wrong way around. Brackets have only been used in Maths for a few centuries now

Well, as I already said multiple times: Division = Multiplication

And you were wrong every time you said it.

therefore they would be doing them together

Not if you left them out of the mnemonic and they didn't know when to do them

I’m a software developer

So am I

adding extra parenthesis often adds clarity

Everyone I've seen add Brackets to it has done so in the WRONG place and given WRONG answers. Again this is an issue of programmers not checking the rules of Maths

that do not apply to what I’m talking about

The rules of Maths always apply to all Maths

So if I see something like “5-(2+4)” I will just remove the subtraction operator and call it a day

Nope. Never said anything of the sort.

Smartman on the internet said so

No I didn't, but nice try at a strawman 😂

not everyone on the internet is a native english speaker. Everyone but you knew what was meant.

There is no such thing as "implied multiplication" in any language. They are called Terms/Products in whatever language that book is using.

the creator of the universe tells this guy he’s being a hypocritical crank

The creator of the universe made the laws of nature, which gave rise to the rules of Maths, which can be found in Maths textbooks 😂

Adults who have forgotten the rules who I work with and read/write code where it’s important

And as a consequence of that, MathGPT is the only e-calc which gives correct answers to order of operations! 😂

This is like some pure maths vs real life engineering cliché

It's a Correct Maths vs. Programmers who have forgotten the rules cliche

You’re either being deliberately obtuse or you’re painfully naive

Neither, I'm a Maths teacher

More people evaluate 2+3x4 incorrectly than 2+(3x4)

The people who have forgotten the rules of Maths, and the mnemonics even! 😂

So, no, your answer does not hold up to my observed reality

So try observing a real Maths textbook then. Students have no trouble at all with this, only adults who've forgotten the rules.

I’m not humoring this again

STILL can't admit you're wrong then 😂 I guess you never bothered looking in any Maths textbooks since last time then (or you did and don't want to admit you found out you were wrong)

Depends on the language

No it doesn't.

if “5(” gets interpreted as “5×(”. I guess mostly no

Always no. The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac).

You can’t prove something with incomplete evidence

If something is disproven, it's disproven - no need for any further evidence.

BTW did you read my thread? If you had you would know what the rules are which are being broken.

the article has evidence that both conventions are in use

I'm fully aware that some people obey the rules of Maths (they're actual documented rules, not "conventions"), and some people don't - I don't need to read the article to find that out.

The distributive law has nothing to do with brackets

BWAHAHAHA! Ok then, what EXACTLY does it relate to, if not brackets? Note that I'm talking about The Distributive LAW - which is about expanding brackets - not the Distributive PROPERTY.

a(b+c) = ab + ac

a(b+c)=(ab+ac) actually - that's one of the common mistakes that people are making. You can't remove brackets unless there's only 1 term left inside, and ab+ac is 2 terms.

ab+c = (ab)+(ac)

No, never. ab+c is 2 terms with no further simplification possible. From there all that's left is addition (once you know what ab and c are equal to).

brackets are purely notational

Yep, they're a grouping symbol. Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols.

read the article instead of “scanning” it.

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the claim that the right answer was wrong. I then scanned it for any textbook references, and there were none (as expected).

You clearly don’t even understand the term “implicit multiplication” if you’re claiming it’s made up

Funny that you use the word "term", since Terms are ONE of the things that people are referring to when they say "implicit multiplication" - the other being The Distributive Law. i.e. Two DIFFERENT actual rules of Maths have been lumped in together in a made-up rule (by people who don't remember the actual rules).

BTW if you think it's not made-up then provide me with a Maths textbook reference that uses it. Spoiler alert: you won't find any.

Implicit multiplication is not the controversial part of this equation

It's not the ONLY controversial part of the equation - people make other mistakes with it too - but it's the biggest part. It's the mistake that most people have made.

shitty blog

So that's what you think of people who educate with actual Maths textbook references?

Read. The. Article.

Read Maths textbooks.