• 0 Posts
  • 51 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 19th, 2023

help-circle






  • unoriginalsin@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneGlitch in the matrix
    link
    fedilink
    Afaraf
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    What an interesting error to point out in support of pemdas.

    Clearly the formatting of a paragraph of text in a textbook full of clearly and unambiguously written formulas discussing the very order of operations itself compared to the formatting of an actual formula diagram is going to be less clear. But here you’ve chosen to point to a discussion of why the order is irrelevant in the case under question.

    Your example is the conclusion of a review of mathematics.

    First we shall review some mathematics.

    The actual order of differentiation is immaterial:

    The fact that the example formula is written sloppy is irrelevant, because at no point is this going to be an actual formula meant to be solved, it’s merely an illustration of why, in this case, the order of a particular operation is “immaterial”.

    Even if ∂^2f/∂y∂x is clearly written to mean ∂^2f/(∂y∂x), it doesn’t matter because “∂2f/∂x∂y=∂2f/∂y∂x”. So long as you’re consistently applying pemdas, you’re going to get the same answer whether you derive x first or y.

    However, when it’s time to discuss the actual formulas and equations being taught in the example text, clearly and unambiguously written formulas are illustrated as though copied from Ann illustration on a whiteboard instead of inserted into paragraphs that might have simply been transcribed from a lecture. Which, somewhat coincidentally, is exactly what your citation is.


  • I don’t know why you’re getting lost on the pedantry of defining “grade school”, when I was clearly discussing the fact that you only see this kind of sloppy formula construction in arithmetic textbooks where students are learning the basics of how to perform the calculations. Once you get into applied mathematics and specialized fields that use actual mathematics, like engineering, chemistry and physics, you stop seeing this style of formula construction because the ambiguity of the terms leads directly to errors of interpretation.






  • unoriginalsin@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldshould i??
    link
    fedilink
    Afaraf
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    The poster has way too long of hair for none of it to be visible in the photo.

    Bro, wait until you hear about the cool new hair prosthetic they just invented. I think they’re calling it a weg or wig, I dunno something like that. And then there’s all the hats and headbands that can be used to put hair up into fancy hairstyles that don’t just dangle all the way down like Rapunzel. Really good for vigorous physical activities like running or jumping or even dancing.


  • It’s BE(D=M)(A=S). Different places have slightly different acronyms - B for bracket vs P for parenthesis, for example.

    But, since your rule has the D&M as well as the A&S in brackets does that mean your rule means you have to do D&M as well as the A&S in the formula before you do the exponents that are not in brackets?

    But seriously. Only grade school arithmetic textbooks have formulas written in this ambiguous manner. Real mathematicians write their formulas clearly so that there isn’t any ambiguity.