wischi

joined 1 year ago
[–] wischi@programming.dev 3 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Did you read the blog post? I also quoted the exact same thing.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Regarding your first part in general true, but in this case the sheer amount of calculators for both conventions show that this is indeed intended behavior.

Regarding your second point I tried to address that in the "distributive property" section, maybe I need to rewrite it a bit to be more clear.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 5 points 11 months ago

@Prunebutt meant 4.5! and not 4.5. Because it's not an integer we have to use the gamma function, the extension of the factorial function to get the actual mean between 1 and 9 => 4.5! = 52.3428 which looks about right 🤣

[–] wischi@programming.dev 2 points 11 months ago

Thank you so much for taking the time and reading the post. I just fixed the typos, many thanks for pointing them out.

There is nothing really to be embarrassed about and if you look at the comment sections of such viral math posts you can see that you are certainly not the only one. I think that mnemonics that use "MD" and "AS" without grouping like in "PE(MD)(AS)" are really to blame here.

An alternative would be to drop the inverse and only use say multiplication and addition as I suggested with "PEMA" but with "PEMDAS" one basically sets up students for the problem that they think that multiplication comes before division.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 2 points 11 months ago

Thank you for taking the time to read it.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 6 points 11 months ago

That's actually a great way of putting it 🤣

[–] wischi@programming.dev 22 points 11 months ago (22 children)

The calculator section is actually pretty important, because it shows how there is no consensus. Sharp is especially interesting with respect to your comment because all scientific Sharp calculators say it's 1. For all the other brands for hardware calculators there are roughly 50:50 with saying 1 and 9.

So I'm not sure if you are suggesting that thousands of experts and hundreds of engineers at Casio, Texas Instruments, HP and Sharp got it wrong and you got it right?

There really is no agreed upon standard even amongst experts.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 6 points 11 months ago

I'm not sure if you read the post yet but I also have a short section about alternative notations which are less ambiguous or never ambiguous. RPN has the same issue as most notations that are never ambiguous namely that it's hard to read - especially for big expressions.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I still don't see a number ;-) but you can take a look at the meme to see other people with math degrees shouting at each other.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

"when in doubt" is a bit broad but left to right is a great default for operations with the same priority. There is actually a way to calculate in any order if divisions are converted to multiplications (by using the reciprocal value) and subtractions are converted to additions (by negating the value) that requires at least a little bit of math knowledge and experience so it's typically not taught until later to prevent even more confusion.

For example this: 6 / 2 * 3 can also be rewritten as 6 * 2⁻¹ * 3 and because multiplication is commutative you can now do it in any order for example like 3 * 6 * 2⁻¹

You can also "rearrange" the order without changing the meaning if you move the correct operation (left to the number) with it (should only be done with explicit multiplication)

6 / 2 * 3 into 6 * 3 / 2 (note that I moved the division with the 2)

You can even bring the two to the front. Just remember that left to the six is an "imaginary" (don't quote me ^^) multiplication. And because we can't just move "/2" to the beginning we have to insert a one (empty product - check Wikipedia) like so:

1 / 2 * 6 * 3

This also works for addition and subtraction

7 + 8 - 5

You can move them around if you take the operation left to the number with it. With addition the "imaginary" operation at the beginning is a plus sign and the implicit number you use is zero (empty sum - check Wikipedia)

8 - 5 + 7

or like this

0 - 5 + 8 + 7

because with negative numbers you can use the minus sign to indicate negative numbers you can even drop the leading zero like this

-5 + 8 + 7

That's not really possible with multiplication because "/2" is not a valid notation for "1/2"

[–] wischi@programming.dev 7 points 11 months ago

❤️ True, but I think one of the biggest problems is that it's pretty long and because you can't really sense how good/bad/convining the text is it's always a gamble for everybody if it's worth reading something for 30min just to find out that the content is garbage.

I hope I did a decent job in explaining the issue(s) but I'm definitely not mad if someone decides that they are not going to read the post and still comment about it.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

The problem with BODMAS is that everybody is taught to remember "BODMAS" instead of "BO-DM-AS" or "BO(DM)(AS)". If you can't remember the order of operations by heart you won't remember that "DM" and "AS" are the same priority, that's why I suggested dropping "division" and "subtraction" entirely from the mnemonic.

It's true that calculators also don't dictate a standard but they implement what conventions are typically used in practice. If a convention would be so dominating (let's say 95% vs 5%) all calculator manufacturers would just follow the 95% convention, except maybe for some very special-purpose calculators.

view more: ‹ prev next ›