Imma be weird and argue that the answer actually should be 4.
Dear Aunt Sally is great or whatever, but syntax also fuckin matters. We can all probably agree that the faster, more intuitive answer is obviously 4. Most of those in the western world (meme’s largest audience) read left-to-right and there is nothing the delineate that division must actually come before inverse addition until one has carefully examined the entire the problem (which you should definitely be doing, dumb-dumb) and slapped on another layer of thinking (inefficient waste of time when doing quick mafs). Use the damn parenthesis, ffs!
I find this to be unironically both easier to read (by an incredibly wide, dyslexic margin) and faster to write and type.
Parenthesis consists of only two symbols that only require two keyboard keys and a single stroke of a pen to write compared to the four keys and varying strokes of the standard operators (aka. more efficient). But, far more importantly for me anyway, “+”, “×”, “*”, “÷”, all look nearly identical unless I stare the keyboard or problem for an agonizing century (waste of time, perhaps?) and even then it’s a mystery whether my brain processed the symbology correctly or put the numbers in the right spot to do math (yep, waste of time). The humble ( ), however, is very easy to see, and it creates neat little windows that don’t leave much room for misinterpretation.
2*7²+5*3³ = accessibility nightmare
(2(7²))+(5(3³)) = readable with clearly defined order of operations
Parenthesis consists of only two symbols that only require two keyboard keys and a single stroke of a pen to write compared to the four keys and varying strokes of the standard operators
The humble ( ), however, is very easy to see, and it creates neat little windows that don’t leave much room for misinterpretation.
2*7²+5*3³ = accessibility nightmare
(2(7²))+(5(3³)) = readable with clearly defined order of operations
I mean, I guess I have no reason to doubt your word so I’ll just believe you were being serious and respond in kind.
Time savings you might gain from parentheses being easier to write and requiring less keystrokes is lost on you needing to use twice as many since they come in pairs.
Furthermore, with the exception of *, which we don’t even write most of the time, you still need to use all of the other operators even with parentheses, so using them everywhere isn’t even a trade off, it’s a net loss. This also means that parentheses will not help you differentiate between the operators because you’ll still be using them.
Finally, the only reason you find the example I gave easier to read with parentheses is because I used a lot of multiplication, but you have multiplication to thank for that, not parentheses. In most cases, it would have fairly simple expressions like this:
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8
turned into this:
1+(2+(3+(4+(5+(6+(7+(8))))))
If you truly want to eliminate ambiguity, have a look at reverse polish notation. I find it confusing as hell but some people like it.
Simple rules are only simple if they are intuitive and consistently applicable. Otherwise, they are nothing more than yet another thing to remember and think about, yet another source of error, and yet another possible point of confusion. With enough time/ effort, one can brute force the intuitiveness, but that doesn’t automatically make the rule good or universally useful.
As a math teacher, I can assure you that not everyone has the same level of understanding or knowledge when it comes to order of operations. Some people struggle to remember the specific order, and mnemonics are worthless. Others struggle to read or visually process problems written with unclear or inconsistent symbology. Hell, most people don’t even learn exactly the same fucking rules. Tell me, where is the simplicity in all of that?
When I teach order of operations, the glass eyes and exasperated sighs of frustration come out. But when I teach just the parenthesis and exponent stuff, lightbulbs and understanding. Suddenly, people “too dumb” to do 2+2 are doing algebra and getting excited about math for the first time ever. Some of this is certainly a failing of our collective education system, but we can’t just forget that everyone has their own flavor of learning disability, neuro-diversity, and life experience. Simple rules quickly fail to be simple in the face of complex people.
Imma be weird and argue that the answer actually should be 4.
Dear Aunt Sally is great or whatever, but syntax also fuckin matters. We can all probably agree that the faster, more intuitive answer is obviously 4. Most of those in the western world (meme’s largest audience) read left-to-right and there is nothing the delineate that division must actually come before inverse addition until one has carefully examined the entire the problem (which you should definitely be doing, dumb-dumb) and slapped on another layer of thinking (inefficient waste of time when doing quick mafs). Use the damn parenthesis, ffs!
Following your logic,
2*7²+5*3³ becomes (2(7²))+(5(3³))
Talk about inefficient waste of time.
I find this to be unironically both easier to read (by an incredibly wide, dyslexic margin) and faster to write and type.
Parenthesis consists of only two symbols that only require two keyboard keys and a single stroke of a pen to write compared to the four keys and varying strokes of the standard operators (aka. more efficient). But, far more importantly for me anyway, “+”, “×”, “*”, “÷”, all look nearly identical unless I stare the keyboard or problem for an agonizing century (waste of time, perhaps?) and even then it’s a mystery whether my brain processed the symbology correctly or put the numbers in the right spot to do math (yep, waste of time). The humble ( ), however, is very easy to see, and it creates neat little windows that don’t leave much room for misinterpretation.
2*7²+5*3³ = accessibility nightmare
(2(7²))+(5(3³)) = readable with clearly defined order of operations
I did preface this by pointing out I’m weird.
Oh, you’re trolling. Carry on, then.
Oh, you don’t know how to read, carry on then.
lol are legitimately saying this was not a joke?
I mean, I guess I have no reason to doubt your word so I’ll just believe you were being serious and respond in kind.
Time savings you might gain from parentheses being easier to write and requiring less keystrokes is lost on you needing to use twice as many since they come in pairs.
Furthermore, with the exception of *, which we don’t even write most of the time, you still need to use all of the other operators even with parentheses, so using them everywhere isn’t even a trade off, it’s a net loss. This also means that parentheses will not help you differentiate between the operators because you’ll still be using them.
Finally, the only reason you find the example I gave easier to read with parentheses is because I used a lot of multiplication, but you have multiplication to thank for that, not parentheses. In most cases, it would have fairly simple expressions like this:
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8
turned into this:
1+(2+(3+(4+(5+(6+(7+(8))))))
If you truly want to eliminate ambiguity, have a look at reverse polish notation. I find it confusing as hell but some people like it.
Using parentheses where a few simple rules will do seems awfully inefficient. Both to write and to read.
Simple rules are only simple if they are intuitive and consistently applicable. Otherwise, they are nothing more than yet another thing to remember and think about, yet another source of error, and yet another possible point of confusion. With enough time/ effort, one can brute force the intuitiveness, but that doesn’t automatically make the rule good or universally useful.
As a math teacher, I can assure you that not everyone has the same level of understanding or knowledge when it comes to order of operations. Some people struggle to remember the specific order, and mnemonics are worthless. Others struggle to read or visually process problems written with unclear or inconsistent symbology. Hell, most people don’t even learn exactly the same fucking rules. Tell me, where is the simplicity in all of that?
When I teach order of operations, the glass eyes and exasperated sighs of frustration come out. But when I teach just the parenthesis and exponent stuff, lightbulbs and understanding. Suddenly, people “too dumb” to do 2+2 are doing algebra and getting excited about math for the first time ever. Some of this is certainly a failing of our collective education system, but we can’t just forget that everyone has their own flavor of learning disability, neuro-diversity, and life experience. Simple rules quickly fail to be simple in the face of complex people.