Quote:
Originally Posted by eroticsexxx
I am aware of the correct nature of my findings and unlike you I don't need to post a google result from 1999 and stand by it simply because the person happens to be a Phd.
|
I agree with you that 1999 is a bit too old. Fortunately, somebody asked that very same PHD this EXACT question in this day and age. Here is how he answered it:
Quote:
We've dealt with the same thing here many times over the years, and I
basically agree with you that it is ambiguous enough to simply avoid
ever writing anything of this form.
There is no standard rule that tells you to do the multiplication
first, though the rule makes sense at least visually. Some texts
actually teach such a rule, but forget to tell their readers that it
is not standard. The left to right approach yielding 288 is the only
interpretation that fits the usual set of rules; but it is so easy to
misread that I'd avoid it. The fact that mathematicians hardly ever
use the in-line division symbol in the first place, using the fraction
bar instead, makes it a moot point.
Here are some of my own discussions of the topic:
Order of Operations Dispute
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57025.html
Order of Operations
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/54341.html
More on Order of Operations
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57021.html
Implied Multiplication and TI Calculators
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/72166.html
Your attempt to solve this as an equation doesn't really do anything,
because when you solve you are making implicit assumptions about the
order of operations.
If you have any further questions, feel free to write back.
- Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum
|
So there you have it folks. A PHD and professor of mathematics says, in 2011 says it's a poorly written equation that, and I quote him here directly, "The left to right approach yielding 288 is the only interpretation that fits the usual set of rules; but it is so easy to
misread that I'd avoid it".
PHD Math > everyone here. Case closed.