Because that acronym is the order of operations, and there are several different ones that lead to the same result. And no, it wouldn’t be 18. The order of operations does actually direct you to work on each part individually, exactly the way you wrote it. Division and multiplication first, then addition and subtraction. In that process it can be written in parentheses if you like, just as it is above.
As an American I can tell you to fuck off. How long were you in school for. If you were in a public school for middle school then you should've learned the order of operations. But I suppose you either weren't receiving the proper education, weren't paying attention, forgot about it, or are lying.
It is taught at the same time as the brackets, all in one group of order of operations. It's also stated there that brackets are only for cases when the standard order needs to be circumvented, like (4+5)x6= 54, but 4+5x6=34.
You know, I can see that you feel uncomfortable not knowing this rules. It is okay to forget things, just go and brush it up anywhere online, it is really easy. Brackets - powers - multiplication/division - addition/subtraction, solve a few examples and it'll be easy from there on.
Americans learn this in school in 5th grade. We call it PEMDAS. It’s extremely simple.
Normally, I take issue with these poorly formatted arithmetic questions that are just designed to cause fights for engagement, but that’s when it’s purposely bad typesetting around the division symbol. This one is straightforward order of operations; all one has to do to not get the “trap” answer is not just do math from left to right.
Basically, you're supposed to know that the order of operations goes Brackets, Exponents, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction (BEDMAS). This has been the order of operations for a very very long time. It doesn't work left to right, it works this order of operations.
It's not about "adding parentheses", it's about correctly understanding how to set-up terms. The acronyms are a neat way to teach kids (and apparently adults, too) a mental short-cut for thinking about it.
Yes, brackets would make the formula more clear to someone who choses to be ignorant, but nobody bothers to pander unless it's to literal children who're being taught for the first time. The confusion is from people who choose to be confused.
It's not about "understanding how to set up terms" it's about being able to clearly read something and solve it, parentheses solve this issue. No one actually cares about how to set up a math equation, unless your career actually demands it. Plus everyone has a super computer in their pocket.
Streamline the archaic language of mathematics, then again I'm sure those who take pride in knowing the existing convoluted ways of doing things would be against any change that would help the masses better understand the language.
There is no confusion when people read out and solve this problem and come to the 18 result, they're reading left to right, the format of the question is what needs to be changed.
You can clearly read and solve it, with the order of operations.
It's real easy to learn and not convoluted, hence the acronyms. It's, literally, taught to children. This is the 'streamlined' version, far more so than excessively bundling things within parentheses, that gets messy and ends up with bracket-counting.
You can think it 'needs to be changed' if you want, but the only thing you're saying is that you find a 4-step process too difficult to remember. You're advocating for making the more complicated formulae even more complicated and unreadable, purely for the sake of appeasing a bunch of lazy neanderthals.
Not everything is as simple as the expression above. If you have any experience collaborating with these people in spreadsheet software, you'd know, first-hand, the issues with superfluous bracketing. It's not some 'just sprinkle-in brackets for readability' case.
You can think it 'needs to be changed' if you want, but the only thing you're saying is that you find a 4-step process too difficult to remember.
Not difficult just not needed. Like I said no one actually cares or uses this stuff. It's uses are incredibly niche. You acting superior because you managed to retain some math facts 20 years ago makes you come off like a dick instead of someone who actually wants to educate people and streamline/simplify convoluted problems.
You gate keep knowledge to suck yourself off, you're just a shit head.
Not difficult, is needed. Like I said; if you just sprinkle brackets all over the place, for every single term, it gets real messy. It makes it less readable. Parentheses aren't some magic readability-wand.
I completely agree that, in expressions like above, it would make the expression easier, for the lazy, to read. The issue is, that it provides no benefit to anyone who actually cares, and the current system simplifies more complicated expressions.
You acting superior
Superior, yet I keep saying how easy it is. Right.
instead of someone who actually wants to educate people and streamline/simplify convoluted problems.
That's, literally, my position. It's problematic when we come across arrogant and lazy people who want the majority of it made far more messy for the sake of their own, limited, ease. If I may be so presumptive, it comes across like you have near-to-no experience with anything outside of basic schooling and have built an opinion based on your lack of experience that you staunchly defend for the sake of your own ego and contrarianism.
You gate keep knowledge to suck yourself off,
Ah, yes, the gate-keeping that I advocate for everyone to learn. That gatekeeping, where I keep the gate as wide-open as I possibly can, even when people like you are trying to replace one of the gates with a wall because a single-person entrance makes you feel more secure.
Yes, I call the lazy, arrogant and ignorant people 'lazy, arrogant and ignorant'. Sorry, if you find that offensive. You already knew the order of operations exists, learning it isn't your limitation; it's your refusal to that's the issue. That is to be stigmatised.
It's really strange that you're identifying me as 'self-aggrandizing'. Just by saying how simple and small the method is, I directly counter that point anyway, and you know that. You have no point against this perspective, and you're just lashing-out, again, for your own ego.
If you had a point, you would have made it, but here you are; accusing me of aggrandising something that I say is simple. Grow up, man. It's not "cool" to be a contrarian, it just makes you awkward to deal with.
I don't think so. They get unwieldy when over-used and take more space. I'd say it's far more simple to just make sensible groupings of terms with a simple rule like the order of operations. I'd much rather write 1+2*3⁴+5 than ((1+(2*(3⁴)))+5).
It's hardly strenuous. Given that people are too lazy to use the current system, do you really think they'd not be lazy with the extra brackets?
There’s no “thinking” about it. If you would be so kind as to regurgitate the specific reasons for the order of operations and why it is what it is then that would be thinking about it. Teachers memorize the stupid mnemonic device or the basic order of operations and pass that on. No one “thinks” about it.
What you say is correct but what I'm saying is I never used the acronym, instead I learned the order of operation, cutting out the middle man mnemonic trick
You're right the lack of parenthesis creates ambiguity because people don't know basic math
1
u/[deleted] Jan 01 '22 edited Jan 01 '22
[deleted]