The rules are universal, only the mnemonics used to remember the rules are different
The rules and the acronyms describe different things. If you have to make more rules to say M and D are the same, and that you go left to right when you do them, then the basic rules you followed were flawed. The universal conventions of mathematics don’t need these acronyms confusing people.
high school Maths textbooks
I haven’t seen anything since early elementary school, not middle school, and certainly not high school. Regardless, if a textbook has it, it doesn’t make it right at all. If the acronyms are useless to learn, having them in a textbook doesn’t validate them.
and order of operations worksheet generators
…that’s one of the two examples you used? Did you think about that before you typed it out?
It’s always 2. #MathsIsNeverAmbiguous
IT IS AMBIGUOUS IN THIS POST AND ALL EXAMPLES I HAVE SHOWN. That is the problem at hand.
There is no real problem solving in trying to decipher poorly written shit. It’s the equivalent if English classes took time out to give students worksheets with “foder” written on them, and expecting students to find out if the writer meant “folder” or “fodder”- no sentence context, just following a list of “rules”. It is not difficult to write mathematical expressions with clear context to how numbers relate, even with the lazy shortcuts and shorthand that mathematicians love.
The rules are universal, only the mnemonics used to remember the rules are different
… and high school Maths textbooks, and order of operations worksheet generators, and…
It’s always 2. #MathsIsNeverAmbiguous
The rules and the acronyms describe different things. If you have to make more rules to say M and D are the same, and that you go left to right when you do them, then the basic rules you followed were flawed. The universal conventions of mathematics don’t need these acronyms confusing people.
I haven’t seen anything since early elementary school, not middle school, and certainly not high school. Regardless, if a textbook has it, it doesn’t make it right at all. If the acronyms are useless to learn, having them in a textbook doesn’t validate them.
…that’s one of the two examples you used? Did you think about that before you typed it out?
IT IS AMBIGUOUS IN THIS POST AND ALL EXAMPLES I HAVE SHOWN. That is the problem at hand.
There is no real problem solving in trying to decipher poorly written shit. It’s the equivalent if English classes took time out to give students worksheets with “foder” written on them, and expecting students to find out if the writer meant “folder” or “fodder”- no sentence context, just following a list of “rules”. It is not difficult to write mathematical expressions with clear context to how numbers relate, even with the lazy shortcuts and shorthand that mathematicians love.
No, they don’t.
I didn’t make more rules - that’s the existing rules. Here’s one of many graphics on the topic which are easy to find on the internet…
Yes. Did you try looking for one and ramping it up to the most difficult level? I’m guessing not.
No, it isn’t. Division before subtraction, always.
None of those have been ambiguous either, as I have pointed out.
The problem is people not obeying the rules of Maths.
It’s not poorly written. It’s written the exact way you’d find it in any Maths textbook.