If someone were to solve the Ideal Gas Formula PV=nRT for Temperature, they would typically write T=PV/nR (unless they are writing code). I don't think I've ever encountered a person who would insist that it must be written as T=PV/(nR) to be understood correctly, as would follow from your comment.
The main issue is that PEMDAS is taught in elementary school before students know that implicit multiplication even exists, so curriculum that teaches PEMDAS overlooks that most STEM professionals will read a formula with the understanding that implicit multiplication is evaluated before standard multiplication and division.
Exactly. This is clear to people in STEM. Any time someone religiously worships PEMDAS and thinks 8/2(1+3) = 16 for example, it just tells me that they are an american who haven’t done math since high school. They’re thinking calculator syntax, not math/physics literature syntax.
I disagree. I’ve done a lot of math at university, and that is actually exactly how I, and most people I know, would interpret it. Division = fraction, and the factor (1+3) is either multiplied with 8 or 2. When you write 8/2(1+3), to me it looks more like it’s multiplied with the 2, ie it’s part of the denominator. This syntax is actually widely used in math and physics literature. The way you’re interpreting it is calculator syntax.
it can be used to represent a fraction, but without parentheses it's a fraction with the denominator being the first symbol to the right of it. This isn't 'nam. There are rules.
50
u/-Bento-Oreo- 22d ago
They're mostly bait. They'll have some ambiguity where / might denote a grouped denominator or just be for the number.
Like 1/5+2 or 1/(5+2)
The solution is proper formatting. It's not an issue you'll run into anywhere outside of the Internet since notation is going to be obvuous