• Lopen's Left Arm@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Fortunately, the rules necessary to resolve the equation in this post are extremely elementary, so none of what you’re referencing has any bearing whatever.

    There are exactly three things to consider in here to determine priority: parentheses, multiplication/division, and addition. The addition happens first due to the parentheses, and the remaining is evaluated left-to-right. The only correct answer here is 16.

    All your deflection from your embarrassment at misreading a simple equation doesn’t detract from this.

    • Primarily0617@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Fortunately, the rules necessary to resolve the equation in this post are extremely elementary, so none of what you’re referencing has any bearing whatever.

      this would be like trying to tell a chemical engineer they didn’t know what they were doing based on your understanding of the atom as a ball of protons with electrons wooshing round it like they were moons

      very cute

      unfortunately, if you give the expression 1 / 2x to anybody who knows what they’re doing they’ll interpret it as 1 / (2x) because it would be absurd not to

      for reference, that’s why the calculator works like this. because it’s a tool designed primarily for people who actually know what they’re doing with numbers, so it works how they expect it to work

      • Lopen's Left Arm@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        And there you’ve proven exactly what I’ve been saying all along. 2x works the way it does because there’s a variable involved, and natural reading of that treats it as a single entity. There are no variables in the equation in the post, there are only definite numbers, parentheses, and simple mathematical operations. 8/2(2+2) is nothing more than 8/2×(2+2). There is nothing special about 2(…, this is not the equivalent of 2x.

        • Primarily0617@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          a natural reading of 2(2+2) treats it as the same

          you’re straight up just spouting contradictory nonsense now because you’ve realised your stance doesn’t make any sense, and i am very much here for it

        • 2x works the way it does because there’s a variable involved, and natural reading of that treats it as a single entity

          Just like 2(2+2) is also a single Term.

          no variables in the equation in the post, there are only definite numbers

          Pronumerals literally stand in for numerals, and work exactly the same way. There is nothing special about choosing a pronumeral to represent a numeral.

          8/2(2+2) is nothing more than 8/2×(2+2).

          They’re completely different actually. 2(2+2) is a single term in the denominator, (2+2) - which you separated from the 2 with an x - is a now 3rd term which is now in the numerator, having been separated from the 2 which is in the denominator.

          There is nothing special about 2(…, this is not the equivalent of 2x

          So what’s it equal to when x=2+2?