I mean, it is pretty clear here that you do not really understand the purpose of notation,

says person who doesn't understand that there is only one possible answer to 2+3x4. Even kids who are still counting up know what it is

Notation is just a constructed language to convey a mathematical idea, it’s malleable

Yep, and the rules aren't. 2+3x4 can only ever equal 14. In Germany it's written 2+3.4, and it's still equal to 14, because the rules are universal

Nothing you referenced proved the convention as law

says person ignoring the textbook screenshots explaining why it's a Law 🙄

neither is there any mathematical basis for any proof

Yes there is. See textbook screenshots 🙄

it simply is nonsensical to “prove” a notation

It proves the rules 🙄

Have another source for this being convention https://www.themathdoctors.org/order-of-operations-why/

Read the comments and you'll find multiple people telling him he is wrong, with references 😂 His usual comeback is "well, that doesn't prove that it's taught everywhere", yeah only that they ALL say the same thing! 😂 And he even admitted at one point he couldn't find his rule in any Maths textbooks. 😂 I even tried to tell him myself, and he deleted my comment because I proved he was wrong 😂

or https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/884765/mathematical-proof-for-order-of-operations.

Is well-known to be overridden with people who do not know how to do order of operations 😂 On Mastodon I've seen people asking where is a better place to take Maths problems

If you want a book about this

I have plenty of Maths textbooks, which for some reason you refuse to look in

there’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronshtein_and_Semendyayev that is cited by wikipedia.

"comprehensive handbook" - so, yet again, not a Maths textbook 🙄

"first published in 1945 in Russia" - the order of operations rules are older than 1945 😂

"frequently used guide for scientists, engineers, and technical university students" - notably no mention of Mathematicians

I’m sure you could also find stuff about this in a set theory book

and you could find this in a high school Maths textbook

Though good luck understanding them without sufficient experience in high-level maths

You know teachers here are required to have a Masters in Maths right?? 😂

But why is it the correct answer?

Count up and find out, or use some Cuisenaire rods. This is how young kids learn to do it

In what context?

The context of Addition 🙄

What is the definition of addition?

1+1=2, then inductively proven for all subsequent numbers

How can you prove that 1+1=2 from fundamental axioms?

It's true by definition

This is harder to answer than you might think

Not hard at all. 1+1=2 by definition, then the rest of the numbers are proven inductively. You know there are several species of animals that also know how to count, right?

Tell them, not me

You're the one commenting without reading Maths textbooks

I did read everything you said

Clearly you didn't, given you keep telling me to take it up with Harvard/Wiki

enact the change you want to see in Wikipedia

See?? There you go again ignoring what I told you about Wikipedia 🙄

You are functionally illiterate

says person who doesn't understand how apps work

RPN is not an “app.”

What do you think is behind the RPN calculators? A person?? 😂

RPN is a NOTATION

Yep, so is ALGEBRA 😂 The rules are independent of both

That’s what the N is

Yep, notation, not rules

It is a completely different way of doing math!

Nope! It's only a different NOTATION - you just said that yourself! 😂

It works on paper!

So does Algebra - surprise, surprise, surprise 😂

t is a syntax for performing calculations using a stack-based

NOTATION

There are no fucking parentheses - anywhere

And I'm guessing you think there is no 1 anywhere in a+b, and there's no + anywhere in 1-2

Order of operations is implicit

Which you could write explicitly with Brackets. 2 3 + 4 x = (2+3)x4

completely different from the one thing you insist is both universal

No it isn't. 2 3 + 4 x gives the same answer as (2+3)x4, and 3 4 x 2 + gives the same answer as 2+3x4. Note that in the first example 2 3 + is effectively being bracketed, as otherwise you'd get a wrong answer by the order of operations rules

Do you know anything that’s not in a textbook for children?

Yep, everything in high school Maths textbooks 😂

Take it up with them if you have a problem with them

I see you're not even reading what I said. No wonder you don't know how to do Maths...

I cannot stress this enough. If you have a problem with that, contact the author or Berkeley, not me

I cannot stress this enough - look in Maths textbooks, not random University blogs 😂

That’s a very simplistic view of maths

The Distributive Law and Arithmetic is very simple.

It’s convention

Nope, a literal Law. See screenshot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Isn't a Maths textbook, and has many mistakes in it

Just because a definition of an operator contains another operator, does not require that operator to take precedence

Yes it does 😂

2+3x4=2+3+3+3+3=14 by definition of Multiplication

2+3x4=5x4=20 Oops! WRONG ANSWER 😂

As you pointed out, 2+34 could just as well be calculated to 54 and thus 20

No, I pointed out that it can't be calculated like that, you get a wrong answer, and you get a wrong answer because 3x4=3+3+3+3 by definition

There’s no mathematical contradiction there

Just a wrong answer and a right one. If I have 1 2 litre bottle of milk, and 4 3 litre bottles of milk, even young kids know how to count up how many litres I have. Go ahead and ask them what the correct answer is 🙄

Nothing broke

You got a wrong answer when you broke the rules of Maths. Spoiler alert: I don't have 20 litres of milk

You just get a different answer

A provably wrong answer 😂

This is all perfectly in line with how maths work

2+3x4=20 is not in line with how Maths works. 2+3+3+3+3 does not equal 20 😂

add(2, mult(3, 4)), for typical

rule

But it could just as well be mult(add(2, 3), 4), where addition takes precedence

And it gives you a wrong answer 🙄 I still don't have 20 litres of milk

And I hope you see how, in here, everything seems to work just fine

No, I see quite clearly that I have 14 litres of milk, not 20 litres of milk. Even a young kid can count up and tell you that

it just depends on how you rearrange things

Correctly or not

our operators is just convention

The notation is, the rules aren't

Something in between would be requiring parentheses around every operator, to enforce order

No it wouldn't. You know we've only been using brackets in Maths for 300 years, right? Order of operations is much older than that

Such as (2+(3*4))

Which is exactly how they did it before we started using Brackets in Maths 😂 2+3x4=2+3+3+3+3=14, not complicated.

Take it up with Berkeley

Says person refusing to look in Maths textbooks 😂

Again, if you have a problem with Wikipedia, take it up with Wikipedia

You've made the mistake of thinking they care. Again, look for Rick Norwood in the Talk sections, an actual Maths professor (bless him for continually trying to get them to correct the mistakes though)

who needs math anyway?

Lots of people

If the president can claim medicine prices will go down 1200%

Did you miss seeing all the people who know Maths ridiculing him?

They’re definitely not

Says person who definitely can't give a single example of any that aren't 🙄

Just patently untrue,

Maths textbooks are patently untrue?? 😂 I guess you think Earth is flat too