Questionable Questing

Here's the lesson this equation teaches, simplified: The majority of people learn PEMDAS, and immediately assume Parentheses need to be taken care of before everything else.

However, this is not true. What this equation is teaching is that the P in PEMDAS stands for "Inside Parentheses first" not "Anything Involving Parentheses First".

Inconsistent rules do not deserve to exist inside a system of logic. This lesson is entirely a result of a pointless and unneeded shorthand, and grants no benefit to mathematics.
This is a constructed language. It does not need such nonsense.

Valette, as far as I recall? Such trips are the norm in exams to see if you understand how to read and apply equations properly.

Valette? The rules of math are not inconsistent. I'm not sure what makes you think they are, and would like you to give an example.

An example sits right here. There's no need for such convolution when clarity is less complex. A function does not need two symbols, and one symbol should not mean two contrary things.

And there's no need for a test to try and trip up students if the system in question is logical, an element that is core to mathematics.

I'm starting to wonder if this debate should be taken on a thread.

Anyway, gotta disagree with you Valette. Given the low difficulty of the question itself, would use it to test young teens (10-12) if they can read equations properly.

If mathematics is to be a logical language, it should use one clearly distinct symbol for a given meaning. It should not use a symbol to mean two things.

Do you disagree?

False equivalence. It's the same way to mean two things. One may prefer one way, others another. 3 + 3 + 3, 3 x 3 and 27/3 give the same results, but it's done in different ways.

What, exactly, is the difference between 3 x 3 and 3(3) in your eyes, please? Because you have told me they perform exactly the same function, but now you are telling me otherwise.

I don't care to get into a math debate tonight. It's the same thing, written in different ways.

Megaolix's saying 3(3)=3*3=3+3+3=3+(3+3)=3^2
All of those equations are functionally identical and can be simplified into each other depending on what you consider "simplest"

Yes and no. 3(3) and 3 x 3 are given the same function, but 3+3+3 is more than one function, 3+(3+3) adds an extra step on top of that, and 3^2 is entirely different.

They share the same result, but that does not make them the same thing.

Given that we have now diverted from and back to the position that 3(3) and 3 x 3 are the same function, would you care to answer my question five posts up?

Math itself disagrees with you Valette. If you actually clicked on the link I tried to share with you hours ago, you should already know why this is the way it is.

The Parentheses aren't what's important. What's important is the simply fact that, "any two symbols next to each other, barring some other operator, are connected by multiplication."

The parentheses are solely there to keep 2(3) from being read as 23. 2(3) is no different than ab in an equation where ab=c is a times b equals c.

I did follow that link.

Math itself doesn't have a will. It is a language directed by its users. If that is to be the basic relationship between any two numbers lacking an operator, then the multiplication symbol is entirely useless.

Justify this. Why multiplication, and not addition or subtraction? Why not inertia, a lack of any function?

I'm not trying to justify or decide anything here, so maybe that's where this disconnect between us is coming from. This is a rule of math. It has always been a rule of math.

I'm not going to try and explain it, because I didn't make it a rule of math. All I did was learn it in school, like everyone else did. Whether or not its a GOOD rule of math, doesn't matter to me.

Shit, I don't even like math...

At one point in history, multiplication did not exist. Mathematics predates multiplication. Someone decided to use the symbol x to mark their new technique at one point. Someone decided to define the relationship between any two numbers lacking an operator, and it was an arbitrary decision.

Mathematics is a constructed language. It is supposed to be entirely logical. This is not a logical component.

Dammit Valette, this is not the kind of debate any of us can conclude. I mean, square root of 9 and 9 / 3 is still the same thing. Not any of us decided what symbol means what and why there are multiple ways to say the same thing.

What you ask us to answer is something no one on QQ (Unless one of us is an expert mathematician that learned the hows and whys here) can answer.

If you can't provide reasons, why are you arguing? "It is because it is" will never be convincing.

Question can be flipped back to you, I gotta point out.

Anyway, this is not going anywhere. Can we stop this now?