He looks like he just walked straight out of Idiocracy
Pemdas isn’t as arbitrary as people in this thread think it is.
I love maths, and I’m going to butcher any attempt to explain why pemdas isnt totally random. But you can look it up if you wanna know more I guess
Besides no one ever uses that notation - by the time you learn about quadratics, you leave multiplication symbols out of the equation entirely and much of the notation changes shape, with division exclusively being expressed as negative powers or fractions.
At that point you aren’t going to make mistakes, since each hyperlevel uses a different style of notation. Pemdas is used to teach 4 year olds, and it’s fucking dumb. What happens with a log, or sine function. Don’t even get me started on integrals and derivatives.
Pemdas is shit, but not because it’s abirtary. In fact it’s shit because it’s a shithole acyromn
Pemdas is mostly just factoring, kinda. That’s how you should think of it.
2x4 is really 2+2+2+2.
That first 2+(anything else) can’t be acted/operated upon until you’ve resolved more nested operations down to a comparable level.
That’s it. It’s not arbitrary. It’s not magic. It’s just doing similar actions at the same time in a meaningful way. It’s just factoring the activities.
It is, in fact, completely arbitrary. There is no reason why we should read 1+2*3 as 1 + (2*3) instead of (1 + 2) * 3 except that it is conventional and having a convention facilitates communication. No, it has nothing to do with set theory or mathematical foundations. It is literally just a notational convention, and not the only one that is still currently used.
Edit: I literally have an MSc in math, but good to see Lemmy is just as much on board with the Dunning-Kruger effect as Reddit.
If you don’t accept adding and subtracting numbers as allowed mathematical transactions, multiplication doesn’t make sense at all. It isn’t arbitrary. It’s fundamental basic accounting.
What you just said is at best irrelevant and at worst meaningless. No, the fact that multiplication is defined in terms of addition does not mean that it is required or natural to evaluate multiplication before addition when parsing a mathematical expression. The latter is a purely syntactic convention. It is arbitrary. It isn’t “accounting.”
Since the correct mathematical answer isn’t one of the options, the people picking the other options are representing a real resistance to the order of mathematical logic that binds us.
The real answer is 14 because I’m 14 and this is deep.
