Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:11:04 UTC No. 16584770

Why would I ever use the division symbols instead of fractions? If I'm typing something in a calculator or code, I'll just put parentheses everywhere.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:04:47 UTC No. 16584812

>>16584770
>Brb searching the entire spreadsheet for too much or too little parentheses 'cause the AI says WRONG and can't figure out what I actually meant.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:18:40 UTC No. 16584819

>>16584770
>Why would I ever use the division symbols instead of fractions
Cause then you can't mix both.

8⁄4/1⁄2=8÷2

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:29:13 UTC No. 16584828

>>16584766
6/2(2+1) = 6/(2*2)+6/(2*1) = 6/4+6/2 = 6*6/(4*2) = 36/8 = 2π

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:45:18 UTC No. 16584838

parenthesis makes this a non-issue and purposefully excluding them is meant to create engagement with a troll post

bollyn dot com at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:44:48 UTC No. 16584873

>>16584766
6/2*(2+1) = 9
6/2/(2+1) = 1

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:54:01 UTC No. 16584881

>>16584766
>/pol/ thinks
oxymoron

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:23:20 UTC No. 16585007

>>16584766
Imagine still using this retarded notation that causes all this confusion. Just use horizontal line for division faggot

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:20:08 UTC No. 16585057

>>16584766
Under some notation conventions, implicit multiplication denoted by concatenation takes precedence over explicit multiplication and division. I'd argue that [math]6/2\times(2+1)[/math] and [math]6/2*(2+1)[/math] are unambiguously 9, but [math]6/2(2+1)[/math] is usually 1.

An example to prove my point: It looks totally normal that [math]x^2/3x = \frac 1 3 x[/math]. It's super weird to write [math]x^2/3x = \frac 1 3 x^3[/math]

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:22:49 UTC No. 16585061

>>16585007
Hey hey now. No need for that kind of insult. I suck dicks and speaking as a faggot, I don't need to be associated with the dipshits who use intentionally ambiguous notation to drum up engagement on a backwater math forum

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:26:08 UTC No. 16585066

>>16584838
>parenthesis makes this a non-issue
The order of operations makes this a non-issue. Parentheses in this context are literally not needed. And while they can* improve readability, they require typing/writing out a bunch of needless bullshit for larger computations.

>>16585007
>Just use horizontal line for division faggot
Ain't nobody got time to dick around with that shit if there's more than 3 layers of division. Meanwhile 2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 takes no effort to read or understand. That shit would look like ass vertically.

Fuck's sake, if you hate remembering elementary school math that much, just write it out as 6*2-1*(2+1). On a related note, always remember that higher order hyperoperations exist so never use subscripts and superscripts around slash division or implicit multiplication. ÷ and * are your friends. Just cause 22*2=2*22 doesn't mean you should ever write that shit as 22(2) or (2)22.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:37:44 UTC No. 16585077

>>16585057
>Under some notation conventions
If you aren't using the standard order of operations, you should specify the conventions you are using. If the conventions aren't specified, then you should assume the standard order of operations. If the standards are specified, you should just follow those standards. There is literally no cause for confusion, any more than overloading operators in coding causes confusion.

Bases outside of 10 exist too, people somehow manage to not flip out about the base not being specified whenever they see math, but for some god damn reason certain people try to outsmart elementary school math and fail whenever they see in line division and multiplication by juxtaposition.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:06:33 UTC No. 16585092

>>16585077
The thing is that there is no "standard" order of operations formally defined to the level of granularity I'm describing. We all say PEMDAS or BODMAS, but what we really mean is PE(M or D)(A or S), and even then there's lots of stuff that isn't spelled out for you. For example [math]e^{x+y}[/math] has the addition take place before the exponent is evaluated despite the distinct lack of parentheses. Why? Because more or less everyone silently agrees that there is a secret, invisible set of parentheses surrounding the x and y. And why do we do that? Because the P in PEMDAS really has little to do with parentheses, and everything to do with groupings in the construction of an abstract syntax tree. A not insignificant people have learned by example that juxtaposed multiplication is surrounded by a secret invisible set of parentheses, just like you and I agree there was invisible parentheses around the x+y.

Don't like that math notation is ambiguous? Join the club. The notation [math]\log(x)[/math] has like 4 different meanings depending on which subfield you study. The word "homomorphism" can be taken to mean almost any structure-preserving map. The addition symbol is overloaded to take on similar, but not identical meanings in the integers, rationals, reals, complex numbers, vector spaces, and arbitrary abelian groups.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:06:46 UTC No. 16585093

>>16584766
The existence of ÷ and it's consequences on mankind have been a disaster.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:45:15 UTC No. 16585332

6/2(2+1) is
>>16585057
>ambiguous
and BASIC won't accept it

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:50:44 UTC No. 16585333

>>16584766
Julia says it's 1
https://glot.io/snippets/h4lklqc9yb

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:51:06 UTC No. 16585334

>>16585061
>who [intentionally use] ambiguous notation
yeah
exactly
and now you can go back to doing what you like doing

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:02:32 UTC No. 16585841

>>16585092
>The thing is that there is no "standard" order of operations formally defined to the level of granularity I'm describing
There is?
>For example ex+y has the addition take place before the exponent is evaluated despite the distinct lack of parentheses. Why?
Because the addition is within the exponent. Same reason you do addition in parentheses? Or in numerators or denominators? You literally cannot resolve fucking expression otherwise because operators don't have values. Another way of thinking of it would be there are implicit parentheses the same way there is such a thing as implicit multiplication.
>Because the P in PEMDAS really has little to do with parentheses, and everything to do with groupings in the construction of an abstract syntax tree
The order of operations refers to that, OPERATIONS. How the operations are fucking graphically represented is completely fucking immaterial.
>A not insignificant people have learned by example that juxtaposed multiplication is surrounded by a secret invisible set of parentheses
A not insignificant number of people remember Nelson Mandela dying in prison. There is literally no reason to humor bullshit that isn't true. Go ahead and try and find a textbook from this fucking century that doesn't have an appendix dictating an order of operations and notation unique to that book that teaches priority for multiplication by juxtaposition regardless.

>Don't like that math notation is ambiguous?
Math notation isn't ambiguous. There are standard conventions. People ignoring those conventions without indicating so are wrong, and they simply try to use people ignoring those conventions while indicating so in a misguided attempt to justify their being wrong and spreading confusion as equally correct.

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:56:08 UTC No. 16585919

>>16584766
It is 1

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:19:59 UTC No. 16587001

>>16584766
>/pol/

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:01:28 UTC No. 16587085

>>16587001
They say that /pol/ is always right

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 01:00:21 UTC No. 16587426

>>16585919
IMAGINE

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 08:54:04 UTC No. 16587683

>>16584881
nitrogenretard

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 10:32:50 UTC No. 16587750

>>16585066
>2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 takes no effort to read or understand

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 11:20:53 UTC No. 16587770

>>16587750
Are you agreeing or claiming you can't solve 2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 11:25:20 UTC No. 16587771

>>16587770
I'm saying as a professional mathematician that I have no idea what it's supposed to mean and I'm not interested in finding out
no one uses the / symbol like this outside of these bait images
so many middle aged people want to argue on facebook about what math they remember from high school

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 12:17:56 UTC No. 16587805

>>16584766
Invalid syntax has no correct answer. 1 is just as valid an answer as 9. 0.2608... is also an equally valid answer. How once chooses to parse invalid syntax is implementation defined.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:02:21 UTC No. 16587843

>>16587771
>as a professional mathematician that I have no idea what it's supposed to mean
It means 2÷2÷2÷2÷2÷2÷2÷2÷2, which any 3rd grader could have told you Mr. "Professional Mathematician".
>no one uses the / symbol like this outside of these bait images
M8, nobody's looking up ÷ any time I want to type division into a fucking computer when any fucking program is going to be using /. Fuck off. Even google's built in calculator converters ÷ to /. It's a different symbol for the same bullshit. Like ⋅ and *. Does 2*2 make you scared and confused too?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:10:34 UTC No. 16587850

>>16587843
>2÷2÷2÷2÷2÷2÷2÷2÷2
which is also a meaningless pile of nonsense that no mathematician would write

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:12:15 UTC No. 16587852

Comp sci tech bros: yeah guys it's this
Maths bros and physicists: it's ambiguous
Maybe the comp sci retards should evaluate why they think they know more than actual experts in maths.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:13:18 UTC No. 16587854

>>16587850
>which is also a meaningless
Weird. Every calculator I own assigns it a meaning just fine. You must just be fucking stupid.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:13:54 UTC No. 16587855

>>16587001
Well to one sig fig precision it's 4 so it can be anything from 4.0 - 4.499999... so the center is technically correct kek

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:15:25 UTC No. 16587857

>>16587854
>my calculator says
yeah that's fascinating brother
read a math textbook some time

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:16:40 UTC No. 16587858

>>16587852
>Maths bros and physicists: it's ambiguous
You're confusing math bros and physicists with neanderthals.

>Maybe the comp sci retards should evaluate why they think they know more than actual experts in maths.
Maybe the neanderthals should produce a source that backs up their argument that doesn't have an appendix in the back saying they're a fucking idiot.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:17:42 UTC No. 16587859

>>16587857
>read a math textbook some time
See
>>16587858
Go ahead and find me a math textbook that agrees with you. I'll wait.

By the way, I wouldn't re

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:18:08 UTC No. 16587861

>>16587858
Take the L here bozo. When professional mathematicians tell you you're wrong about basic maths, take that as a hint that you don't know what you're talking about.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:19:04 UTC No. 16587862

>>16587859
the math textbook doesn't mention this non-issue of course
I'm just saying that you might like to read one

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:19:56 UTC No. 16587863

>>16587858
>>16587859
>By the way, I wouldn't re
commend using the one from the wikipedia page on order of operations that deals with multiplication by juxtaposition because in the back it says it's using a book specific notation and all multiplication should be done before all division when dealing with the material in the book.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:22:37 UTC No. 16587865

>>16587861
>When professional mathematicians tell you you're wrong about basic maths
You're just some dipshit on the internet, and I've seen professional mathematicians make basic fucking mistakes before.

>>16587862
>the math textbook doesn't mention this non-issue of course
Lol. Lmao even.

How about you read a fucking math textbook and check the appendix for order of operations. Calculator manuals also cover the order of operations where they differ from the standard as well.

You'd know this bullshit if you actually read the shit you're telling others to.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:25:02 UTC No. 16587866

>>16587862
>the math textbook doesn't mention this non-issue of course
This is genuinely the fastest backpedal I've ever fucking seen. You went from "Do your own research to see I'm right" to "Don't rely on research to see I'm right" the instant you were challenged.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:25:37 UTC No. 16587867

>>16587865
yeah if I ever read a textbook these days it's not going to have a single mention of order of operations
the reason is that they don't write things in this ambiguous way
>calculator manual
who even owns a calculator in 2025

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:25:49 UTC No. 16587868

Fowles & Cassiday, Analytical Mechanics utilizes implies multiplication

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:26:50 UTC No. 16587869

Bartle & Sherbet, Introduction to Real Analysis judiciously and copiously utilizes implies multiplication

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:32:29 UTC No. 16587872

Childs, A Concrete Introduction to Higher Algebra utilizes implied multiplication

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:44:18 UTC No. 16587877

>b-b-b-but my calculator says
Yeah, calculators notoriously have problems.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:52:47 UTC No. 16587886

>>16584766
Maybe learn math notation correctly faggot. Start by knowing where to correctly place your parentheses in an expression when you are creating it. Its either [math]6/(2 \times 3)[/math] or [math](6/2)\times 3[/math] not some retarded ambiguous expression like [math]6/2(2+1)[/math].

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:56:14 UTC No. 16587889

>>16587872
Actually it doesn't. It explicitly says / is being used to indicate fractions, not division, when explaining the notation used in the book.

Also this is exactly the sort of shit I'm talking about. Ass-hats like you use shit out of context to justify being wrong because you only half-remember bullshit you've read.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:01:57 UTC No. 16587893

>>16587683
a hit dog will holler

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:07:12 UTC No. 16587901

>>16587872
>>16587889
well the first post has strange examples because those aren't fractions or division, they're quotient spaces

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:37:25 UTC No. 16587919

>>16587869
Actually this appears to just be a typo. The book explicitly says to treat multiplication by juxtaposition as dot multiplication and elsewhere in the book, parentheses are used where appropriate.

Math books can have editorial mistakes, m8.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:49:21 UTC No. 16587935

>>16587877
>Yeah, calculators notoriously have problems.
>google doesn't know how to solve 1/1*2
Fuck off.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:32:11 UTC No. 16588033

>>16587770
>2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2
= 2^(–7)
= 1/128

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:34:04 UTC No. 16588035

>>16588033
2/2=1
2/2/2=2
2/2/2/2=1
2/2/2/2/2=2
2/2/2/2/2/2=1
2/2/2/2/2/2/2=2
2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2=1

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:46:02 UTC No. 16588051

>>16588035
Only certain operations are performed right to left and division isn't one of them.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:50:33 UTC No. 16588056

>>16588051
the point is that there is no set rule on this
math is not a programming language
you can write whatever you like if you explain it to the reader

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:05:20 UTC No. 16588070

>>16588056
>the point is that there is no set rule on this
There are.
>you can write whatever you like if you explain it to the reader
I didn't say you can't write whatever you like if you explain it to the reader (in fact, earlier in the thread I said exactly that). I said if you don't explain it to the reader there are set rules on how a reader should interpret what is written.

We have those set rules so you don't have to explain what you're writing every god damn time (which is a thing nobody fucking does) if you aren't deviating from the norm.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:07:46 UTC No. 16588074

>>16588070
>There are.
There aren't
>We have those set rules so you don't have to explain what you're writing every god damn time (which is a thing nobody fucking does) if you aren't deviating from the norm.
no mathematician writes this dumb shit so there's no need

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:20:59 UTC No. 16588089

>>16588074
>There aren't
Literally the order of operations
>no mathematician writes this dumb shit so there's no need
More than whatever the fuck gaggle of dipshits you think passes for mathematicians uses math, fucknut.

I get it. You're from some insular shithole of autists that feel the need to define out every single thing they type or write because you've failed to notice the world standardized basic math over a century ago, but that doesn't make you right. It just makes you an ignorant troglodyte.

I can't imagine shitting on programmers while demanding every operator you use be explicitly defined out in any context you want to use it for "clarity". You're basically doing shit programmers have to do because nobody wants to use machine code, but just because you're mentally ill instead.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:26:59 UTC No. 16588100

>>16588089
there is no left to right or right to left at all in the order of operations
>demanding every operator you use be explicitly defined out in any context you want to use it
if you don't construct ambiguous expressions with / then there is no need to define anything
I'll tell you again, no mathematician writes this dumb shit

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:34:10 UTC No. 16588107

>>16588100
>there is no left to right or right to left at all in the order of operations
Man they shouldn't let some people out of 2nd grade. Imagine claiming to be a mathematician in the same conversation claiming to be unable to solve 1-1-1= without more information.

>if you don't construct ambiguous expressions with / then there is no need to define anything
/ isn't any more ambiguous than ÷. It's a different way of writing the same operation. Much like * and ⋅.

Also your argument isn't predicated on / being used.

>I'll tell you again, no mathematician writes this dumb shit
And I'll tell you again you're a fucking idiot.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:40:44 UTC No. 16588121

>>16588107
yeah ok brother you're clearly upset but I'm right in everything I've said

>/ isn't any more ambiguous than ÷
yes and nor have I seen the symbol ÷ in a paper ever in my life

this wikipedia section looks like a decent summary if you later want to learn anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Mixed_division_and_multiplication

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:04:05 UTC No. 16588498

>>16584766
I fucking hate math so goddamn much.
My brain shuts down just reading this crap.
I'm hopelessly bad with numbers and it haunts me to this day.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:33:34 UTC No. 16588517

>>16588121
>yes and nor have I seen the symbol ÷ in a paper ever in my life
Whether or not you've seen something has fuck all to do with whether or not it's ambiguous.

>this wikipedia section looks like a decent summary if you later want to learn anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Mixed_division_and_multiplication
Lmao, that article's been edited in the past 6 months by butthurt dipshits like you. I remember the old version of the article where it discussed multiplication by juxtaposition and the sources were field specific books that used completely non-standard notation and some European math book from the early 1900s.

You can see the shitfest in the edit history
>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_of_operations&action=history
Fuck off. Those changes will get reverted again like always.

The fucking audacity to use a wikipedia page in the middle of an edit war your side is losing to argue your point. Also, they need to lock this shit.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:42:15 UTC No. 16588525

>>16588121
>yeah ok brother you're clearly upset but I'm right in everything I've said
You said you can't be sure 1-1-1=-1 because equations aren't necessarily read right to left.

I'm not upset. I'm just disappointed.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:09:11 UTC No. 16588546

>>16584766
idfg which one is taught in school, an omitted multiplication should be solved first

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:15:49 UTC No. 16588549

in real life equations you see in textbooks will never be ambiguous on multiplication/division.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:33:58 UTC No. 16588563

>>16584766
Obviously it's infix, so 6/(2*(2+1))=1

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 05:16:56 UTC No. 16588816

>>16585066
>Parentheses in this context are literally not needed.
wrong. 6/2 could have implicit parentheses. you don't fucking know if it has it. you can't assume that because it isn't written that there is no associative behavior in the expression. if you do, then you're just taking a wild guess.

all of you are fucking DUMB and i hope you all get violently raped one day.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:19:51 UTC No. 16588952

>>16588517
>Whether or not you've seen something has fuck all to do with whether or not it's ambiguous.
if it's never used by mathematicians then it's automatically ambiguous from being an outdated symbol
>edit war etc
I had no idea but I guess it's mathematicians versus people like you

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:20:59 UTC No. 16588953

>>16588525
subtraction is a shorthand for adding a negative number
so yes there is no left to right
I'm getting tired of arguing with high school grads

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:23:49 UTC No. 16588955

>>16588498
>My brain shuts down just reading this crap.
A lot of posts in /sci/ are verbose.
They go on and on, about a one-liner.
My posts are usually short and sweet.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:31:56 UTC No. 16588964

>>16585007
i cant TYPE a fraction

MORON

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:40:17 UTC No. 16588970

>>16588035
>2/2=1
>2/2/2=2
>2/2/2/2=1
>2/2/2/2/2=2
>2/2/2/2/2/2=1
>2/2/2/2/2/2/2=2
>2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2=1
you mean:
2/2 = 1
2/(2/2) = 2
2/(2/(2/2)) = 1
2/(2/(2/(2/2))) = 2
et cetera

that's how the parentheses are in a continued fraction

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:42:00 UTC No. 16588972

>>16588970
there are no parentheses in a continued fraction because it's written as a fraction and not with kindergarten symbols like / and ÷

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:56:36 UTC No. 16588983

>>16588972
>there are no parentheses in a continued fraction
there can be, depending on how it's written
1 + sqrt(2) = 2 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + 1/[...])))

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:59:28 UTC No. 16588988

>>16588983
>your picture
fine math
>2 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + 1/[...])))
preschool bullshit

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:13:51 UTC No. 16589006

>>16588988
unfortunately, they're equal

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:23:36 UTC No. 16589013

>>16589006
obviously they're equal
but the whole point of this thread is that there's a difference between the way mathematicians write math and the symbols children use

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:59:27 UTC No. 16589035

>>16589013
>the way mathematicians write math and the symbols children use

i'm not a mathematician
i'm only a math person

the following expression isn't childish
2 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + 1/(2 + 1/[...])))
it's compact

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:09:13 UTC No. 16589047

>>16589035
>i'm not a mathematician
yeah there's too much of that in this thread
I think I'm done with using /sci/

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:54:11 UTC No. 16589204

>>16588498
khanacademy.org
Skip the vids.
Do every interactive exercise, start from kindergarten level.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 15:25:27 UTC No. 16589279

>>16584766
>Can't say I am surprised
you should be surprised you don't know about basic associativity, smoothbrain.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:16:27 UTC No. 16589551

If I'm grading a math university student, it's 1, otherwise it's 9

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 03:44:22 UTC No. 16589830

>>16585092
log(x) always means the natural logarithm of x unless you predefine it to carry some other unnatural base or you're participating in some extremely niche subfield of math where the unnatural base has already been predefined so many times it's redundant.