This is the first I've heard of "implied multiplication" with higher precedence. What the hell? Went fairly deep into college level mathematics without ever hearing such a concept.

Standard order of operations in basic mathematics sets the answer at 9. It's true that it depends on the convention, but arbitrarily introducing other conventions without prior justification is a foolish argument. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Exceptions_to_the_standard

But those are exceptions ie not the norm.

Wolfram Alpha changed in early 2013 to treat implied multiplication the same as explicit multiplication (formerly, implied multiplication without parentheses was assumed to bind more strongly than explicit multiplication).

Both answers are correct because the problem poses merely a communication problem.

I disagree. As Hodgman said, it is non-standard to find an answer other than 9. You have to rely on (seemingly archaic) exceptions to get anything other than 9, which is not something you should assume you should be doing.

However, one video stated that the forward slash is not a division bar, and is just like the division symbol

Again, that sounds quite standard. I’ve never heard of the forward slash representing a bar completely dividing both sides of it. It doesn’t make sense, since it would really cause troubles in understanding and composing equations. If this is the first time you’ve heard of it this way, you have a lot of equations to go back and revisit.


L. Spiro

Totally, agree with my predecessors, the answer is nein, NEIN NEIN NEIN !

I was never taught any misleading acronym, and today I'm glad.

I was simply taught "addition and subtraction is the same thing" and "multiplication and division is the same thing"

And exponents is some kind of funky multiplication of multiplications (and roots are the same thing)

It's then very logical to order it by how fast it grows, with the fastest first.

Throw in factorials, and you have something that is even faster, and should go first.

But start with the parenthises, since they obviously group things.

There is just a few classes of operators, and the ordering is really logical, why would one need an acronym anyway?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110427155042AACb7d8

But those are exceptions ie not the norm.

If the exceptions are used by the majority, are they really the exception?

If the exceptions are used by the majority, are they really the exception?

This is the kind of thinking that leads to non-existent words being added to the dictionary, such as “ain’t” and “snuck”.

Just because it is common it does not mean it is correct.

I literally almost complimented my American coworker Tuesday for using “sneaked” instead of “snuck”. It’s bad enough that we’ve been degraded to this, but to actually reward the wrong-doers by making their mistakes official would only serve to make it worse.

If only 1 of your dogs craps on your carpet, you punish him or her and clean the mess.

If all 10 of your dogs crap on your carpet, do you punish them all, or do you just leave the mess?

L. Spiro

Personally I hate implied multiplication and avoid using it entirely.

Is "x(y + 2)" a function taking named x taking a value of "y + 2" or is it multiplying "y + 2" times the value of x?

Is "xy" equal to "x * y" or is it a new variable with the name "xy"? Forcing people to use single letter variable names is rather limiting and makes things hard to read.

Or even this "absurd" example:
Is "23" equal to "2 * 10 + 3" or is it equal to 6? (or heck, is it equal to "2 * 16 + 3" or "2 * 8 + 3" or any other set of notations...)

Just save everyone some time and use a multiplication symbol (whether that be 'x', '.', or '*')

If the exceptions are used by the majority, are they really the exception?

This is the kind of thinking that leads to non-existent words being added to the dictionary, such as “ain’t” and “snuck”.
Just because it is common it does not mean it is correct.
I literally almost complimented my American coworker Tuesday for using “sneaked” instead of “snuck”. It’s bad enough that we’ve been degraded to this, but to actually reward the wrong-doers by making their mistakes official would only serve to make it worse.

If only 1 of your dogs craps on your carpet, you punish him or her and clean the mess.
If all 10 of your dogs crap on your carpet, do you punish them all, or do you just leave the mess?


L. Spiro

all words were made up at one point or another.

"other". no-one says me the evaluation order convention, so I can just answer: 6/2(3)

anyway, every-time I see something like this, I comment like "add the fucking round brackets!"