this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
684 points (96.3% liked)

memes

18818 readers
1227 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's not arithmetic at all, it's just about convention aka how to communicate math. The author didn't make themselves clear enough so people misunderstand what calculation they mean.

[–] wuffah@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

In mathematics and computer programming, the order of operations is a collection of conventions about which arithmetic operations to perform first in order to evaluate a given mathematical expression.

The order of operations is part of arithmetic. Although, the memes about it are certainly not good mathematics communication.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There's a useful distinction to be made. The order of operations is different between conventional written maths, calculators, reverse polish notation, python, etc. In contrast there is no disagreement over what the result of any individual binary operations is

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The order of operations is different between conventional written maths, calculators, reverse polish notation, python, etc.

The notation might be different, but the rules are universal

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The rules are about how you interpret the notation, so that makes no sense.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The rules are about how you interpret the notation

No, the notation definitions are about how to interpret the notation. The rules are about how to do the Maths.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So if you have one "notation definition" as you call it which says that 2+2*3 means ”first add two to two, then multiply by three" and another which says "first multiply two by three, then add it to two", why on earth do the "rules" have anything further to say about order of operations?

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

and another which says “first multiply two by three, then add it to two”

No we don't. We have another notation which says to do paired operations (equivalent to being in brackets) first.

why on earth do the “rules” have anything further to say about order of operations?

Because if you don't obey them you get wrong answers 🙄

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

it’s just about convention aka how to communicate math

They're rules actually.

The author didn’t make themselves clear enough

Yes they did, someone screwed up the answers, just like in this book...

misunderstand what calculation they mean

There's only 1 possible answer to it.

[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sorry but there is no math government that can enforce rules, and the order of operations isn't intrinsic either. It is just something people agreed upon volununtarily, aka a convention

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sorry but there is no math government that can enforce rules

Maths textbooks do. Try looking in some

the order of operations isn’t intrinsic either

Yes they are! 😂

It is just something people agreed upon volununtarily, aka a convention

Nope. Literally proven rules

[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

My dude sit in a university lecture for math majors.

Your school books arent gospel

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just so you know, there is no point trying to convince this guy of anything. I explained why here

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My dude sit in a university lecture for math majors

You know I have a Masters in Maths, right? 🤣

Your school books arent gospel

Proofs are, and these things are very easy to prove 🙄

[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You have a masters but you can't differentiate between notation and the concept it is trying to convey

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 15 hours ago

You have a masters but you can’t differentiate between notation and the concept it is trying to convey

By which you mean you mean you don't have a Masters and can't differentiate between notation and rules 🙄

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 2 days ago

My dude sit in a university lecture for math majors

You know I have a Masters in Maths, right? 🤣

Your school books arent gospel

Proofs are, and these things are very easy to prove 🙄