I’ve heard it both ways that in PEMDAS, it’s really more like P,E,MD,AS. As in, when you reach the multiplication and division steps, it’s assumed you do them together in written order, followed by addition and subtraction after.
And like you said, the real-world measurement will actually end up dictating the order, but if this distinction needed to be made, you would separate as necessary with more parentheses.
No, literally all maths is commutative. In fact, you can arbitrarily substitute any number with another number and get the right answer. See?
4+4=8
5+3=8
9+1=8
Same for multiplication and sublimation. 5x2=8.
I could go on, but I’m pretty sure that I’ll injure myself.
But you’re literally wrong in this case. There are two different but valid ways of interpreting the equation that will result in different results. It’s written ambiguously on purpose.
I’ve heard it both ways that in PEMDAS, it’s really more like P,E,MD,AS. As in, when you reach the multiplication and division steps, it’s assumed you do them together in written order, followed by addition and subtraction after.
And like you said, the real-world measurement will actually end up dictating the order, but if this distinction needed to be made, you would separate as necessary with more parentheses.
But also, all maths are commutative, so you can just mush all the numbers together using any means you desire and you’ll always get the right answer.
My math teachers all kicked me out because I was so advanced.
All maths is not communtative. Most of linear algebra and number systems above the complex numbers (i.e. quaternions and above) are not commutative.
But yes, all maths in most peoples everyday life is commutative.
Forgot my “/s,” but I’m happy to double down.
No, literally all maths is commutative. In fact, you can arbitrarily substitute any number with another number and get the right answer. See?
4+4=8
5+3=8
9+1=8
Same for multiplication and sublimation. 5x2=8.
I could go on, but I’m pretty sure that I’ll injure myself.
But you’re literally wrong in this case. There are two different but valid ways of interpreting the equation that will result in different results. It’s written ambiguously on purpose.