Post B51bHQZFNA90Bh3ae8 by FishFace@ioc.exchange
 (DIR) More posts by FishFace@ioc.exchange
 (DIR) Post #B51YQ7B2XFvsnEBXCi by FishFace@ioc.exchange
       0 likes, 1 repeats
       
       @bytebro @elverkonge You're right. P stands for "solve operations within parenthesis".There's an additional convention though, that is not often explicitly mentioned, which is that multiplication without any symbol is done before division. This is quite sensible because there is no symbol to visually separate the two factors so, visually they appear to be a single unit.This leads to a lot of silly memes and arguments between people who follow that convention, and people who strictly apply the conventions they remember being taught, which likely does not include this. In practice, in school the exam boards know about this issue and just don't set questions that use in-line division and symbol-less multiplication.At the end of the day, it doesn't matter which of the two interpretations a tool gives such expressions, as long as it is consistent, and as long as it's possible to work out easily which it is using. Just like if you were a mathematician emailing a colleague about a problem, it doesn't matter which convention you use as long as you're both using the same one.P.S. occasionally people get confused about symbolless multiplication in front of a bracket and think it's part of the brackets/parenthesis step. This is not true, and you will *never* find a complete listing of the order of operations that includes it there. (You can find incomplete phrases like "solve parentheses" where you have to know, or go back and read, what was done up to that point on brackets).Imagine if you followed that idea - you'd do 2(4)² = (2×4)² = 8² = 64, but everyone following the "solve *inside* parenthesis first" way would do 2(4)² = 2(16) = 32! Or even worse, using the laws of indices, you'd do (x)⁴ = (x)²(x)² = ((x)²x)² = (x³)² = (x)⁶! woohoo, free x's!! So this idea is actually way worse than the small inconsistency with symbolless multiplication, because it's actually inconsistent with itself.
       
 (DIR) Post #B51YcrO8Y5oTacO9IW by mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @FishFace @bytebro @elverkonge so 1/2a can be both "half a" and one divided by two-a" and there’s no single standard 🤯But then, mathematics is a few years older than compsci… so this is to be expected.
       
 (DIR) Post #B51bHQZFNA90Bh3ae8 by FishFace@ioc.exchange
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @mirabilos @bytebro @elverkonge it can, but context is our friend - in written mathematics it basically always going to mean 1/(2a).
       
 (DIR) Post #B51bHR2fblgDewp5VY by mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @elverkonge @FishFace @bytebro huh, that’s counter-intuitive for me, though I didn’t pursue maths post-A-levels
       
 (DIR) Post #B51dqbkTzc7QuRDPou by FishFace@ioc.exchange
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @mirabilos @elverkonge @bytebro is it the potential for different interpretations that you find counterintuitive, or the "usual" interpretation of 1/(2a)?
       
 (DIR) Post #B51dqbuPOi3hPDrLI8 by mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @elverkonge @bytebro @FishFace the "usual" interpretationI guess it’s fine in contexts where you can write multiline fractions, but not so much inline