• kameecoding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    For me it’s the arguments when there is a parentheses but no operator (otherwise known as implied multiplication) in these baits e.g. 15 + 2(4 - 2)

    If you don’t know operator orders I have given up long ago, but I have seen a few lengthy discussions about this

    • For me it’s the arguments when there is a parentheses but no operator (otherwise known as implied multiplication)

      No, it’s known as Factorised Terms/Products, solved via The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac). “implied multiplication” is a made up rule by people who have forgotten the actual rules, and often they get it wrong (because, having wrongly called it “multiplication”, they then wrongly give it the precedence of multiplication, not brackets).

    • Mistic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      Oh yeah, that’s a fun one.

      Where I live, this would be considered juxtaposition, at least by uni professors and scientific community, so 2(4-2) isn’t the same as 2×(4-2), even though on their own they’re equal.

      This way, equations such as 15/2(4-2) end up with a definite solution.

      So,

      15/2(4-2) = 3.75

      While

      15/2×(4-2) = 15

      Usually, however, it is obvious even without assuming juxtaposition because you can look at previous operations. Not to mention that it’s most common with variables (Eg. “2x/3y”).