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.
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.