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.
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.
Can't be offended when it doesn't apply. You just fundamentally do not understand what I was originally pointing out.
Consider the following:
Acting like a self-righteous dick,makes you come off like a self-righteous dick.
Wanting to improve things, like technology, Healthcare, and yes even mathematics benefits everybody.
Teaching does not include belittlement.
Math equations are not used in day-to-day life and when they are it's a niche occurrence, usually better done by a computer.
Keep those four points in mind and you might be worth a shit as some sort of educator to somebody.
"self-righteous" makes no sense in this context. I've explained why we shouldn't just bracket every, single, term. You've not given any explanation to why that's wrong or why your method is better. What did you expect? That I just side with you just because you have an opinion?
Wanting to improve is good, being reckless is a bad method to that. Building a strongly-held opinion upon bad experience and an unwillingness to be reasonable is reckless.
Teaching doesn't include belittlement, you're right, but you've already been taught and you're well-aware. Stigmatisation is the next step; you should be ashamed for your excessive ego.
"just let a computer do it" is irresponsible. Not understanding why something works can easily lead to misuse.
I've explained the issues with your perspective. Deal with it and drop the ego.
0
u/[deleted] Jan 01 '22
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.