Talk:Order of operations

Is a parenthesis a mathematical operation

There is a current version of this article that insists that a parenthesis is a mathematical operation and that PEDMAS is a law of mathematics. A parenthesis is a symbol of grouping and PEDMAS is a mnemonic. No reference is given suggesting otherwise. The person who wants this in the article has restored this claim after my revert with the comment "Take it to the talk page." I would appreciate the opinion of others. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Every reference cited by this article treats parenthesis (or brackets or something similar) as part of the "order of operations". Omitting this would mis-represent the source material.

Perhaps you have a source you would like to share that treats order of operations without discussing parenthesis. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my revert, you are correct, parentheses are not technically operations, but since they affect that order in which the operations are performed, it becomes necessary to mention them. Furthermore, it is also necessary to know what the priority level of the parentheses is compared to every other operations. So in order to have a standard way to interpret a mathematical formula, a priority level must be given to each operation and to each type of parentheses (or brackets, if one one form of grouping isn't enough). Perhaps, under the definition, instead of just saying "1. parenthesis", it should say something like: "Any operation or series of operations located in the inner most set of parentheses". Then it becomes less confusing since we are talking about executing operations inside the parentheses, and not the parentheses themselves. Dhrm77 (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest 1. Parentheses: any operation or series of operations delimited by parentheses or other symbols of grouping (the order of operations applies also to such grouped operations). This resolves another issue of the current version, namely that it is not said that the order of operations applies also inside parentheses. D.Lazard (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course the article has to mention parentheses, and does. My point is that parentheses are a symbol of grouping, not an operation, and that PEDMAS is a mnemonic, not a rule of mathematics. Rick Norwood (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the definition subsection is not the proper place to introduce the PEMDAS mnemonic. The following three items do not have a parenthetical explanation and I don't think it's necessary to have one for the first item. Do we really need to explain what parentheses are? And if we do, the current version does a poor job of it.

I would support removing the parenthetical explanation from the first item and adding a brief bit of text to the next paragraph explaining that expressions inside of parentheses are evaluated first.

First and recursively. Meaning that if inside parentheses there are another set of parenthesis, that must be interpreted first. Dhrm77 (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, the term parentheses is a US-specific term; we should also use the term more commonly used in the rest of the English-speaking world.

I'll suggest the following start to the definition subsection:

The order of operations, which is used throughout mathematics, science, technology and many computer programming languages, is:<ref name="Bronstein_1987"/><ref name="Weisstein_2020_Precedence"/><ref name="Stapel_2020"/>

1. Parentheses or brackets
2. Exponentiation and root extraction
3. Multiplication and Division
4. Addition and Subtraction

This means that to evaluate an expression, one first evaluates any expression inside the parentheses, working outwards if there is more than one set. Otherwise, the operator that is higher in the above list should be applied first.

I think this language also avoids implying that parentheses are an "operator". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I'll make this change. It seems to (at least partially) address issues raised in this thread. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, this has been reverted, with the comment

rv Mr. Swordfish's ongoing insistence that parentheses are an operation, a statement that no professional mathematician I know of believes.

Neither the current version of this article nor the version that was just reverted claims that "parentheses are an operation" so I fail to understand the objection. The proposed revision attempted to address three issues discussed above:

1) PEMDAS is a mnemonic, not a "rule" so it's premature to introduce it in the definition section

2) Operator order is applied both inside and outside the parentheses

3) Parentheses are applied recursively inside to outside if more than one set.

I prefer to resolve this via reaching consensus here on the talk page rather than edit warring. Comments? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Bemdas or pemdas ... is the correct term ... subtraction is the lowest order of operation ... then addition ... then division then multiplication ... sometimes addition is a higher order of operation than division ... such as in fractions ... 2/3+3/4 ...

one finds the common denominator by multiplying .. then adding then dividing ... making division lower than multiplication at all times ... and Pemdas is technically wrong as each set of brackets has a different name and they are linked under the term brackets ... not parenthesis ..parenthesis are ( ) ... { } are NOT parenthesis ... forgotten their proper name ... but for order of operations all brackets (that is everything in that subset) gets done first ... then exponents ... then multiplication ... and so on ... this once was taught in grade 1 ... back in the 60's ... these days your lucky if it is taught at all ... youre told bemdas and then do it ... so pemdas is technically invalid ... thus why Bemdas is always true ... even the wiki pages have pedmas listed erroneously ... that is NEVER a valid order ... the order of operation doesnt rely on how a calculator does it ... it is a basic math property that what grows goes first what shrinks goes next ... exceptions also relegate higher order operations below lower order operations in exception such as the fraction example I used .. this math rule if you like is as old as Pythagoras ... but back then they didnt have exponents ... and converted multiplication to addition and division to subtraction ... making addition higher than subtraction still ... and thus the order is always bemdas so this order of operations dates back to roughly 537 BC .. to Pythagoras and Thale ... That is the long answer ... you want more involved proof read Thale and Pythagoras ... you only have a few thousand texts to read to get the full explanation ... takes about 3 weeks .. makes a great report for english class btw too

dont forget Parenthesis are ONLY ( ) ... brackets are ( ), { }, [ ] ... the order of brackets is curly first square second and round third ... each have their own meaning and use in the various disciplines of math ... and curly ones are the highest order of them from integration ... square ones are for limits such as from 0 to 4 ... and round ones are just do this stuff before you move on ... square brackets also denote an array ... which is a set of limits defined by rows and columns ...

the mnemonic Bemdas ... is the only accurate one to use ... in all maths even physics and chemistry

as for source grade 1 math 1969 and 1970 ... and further back Thale ... and Pythagoras ... it dates back even further but it is hazy on whom derived it originally ... Pythagoras is the true father of geometry but Euclid got the title ... just like tesla created radio BUT marconi patented it ... then lost it to Tesla 2607:FEA8:BD22:8900:F522:3964:C719:6913 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

this once was taught in grade 1 ... back in the 60's – this was never taught in the first grade. More like 5th–7th grade. It definitely does not date to Thales or Euclid; modern mathematical notation largely arose in the 17th–19th century, and was initially not very settled. The teaching of formal 'order of operations' rules comes from the 19th century.

According to sources I can find, there were actually a few decades in the ~60s–80s where it was taught substantially less than previously, because it was seen as unnecessary/unhelpful. My impression is that it came back into style with the rise of calculators and computer programming languages, which are inherently much pickier than humans.

parenthesis are ( ) ... { } are NOT parenthesis – in this context the word "parentheses" covers all kinds of grouping punctuation. Often these are ordered from inside out as: round "parentheses" (), square brackets [], curly braces {}, and later sometimes angle brackets etc. However, in technical literature it is also common to just use nested parentheses, reserving other kinds of brackets for other purposes such as real intervals, set-builder notation, bra-ket notation, matrices, the Iverson bracket, and so on. –jacobolus (t) 01:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I still think parentheses are a separate topic, which are not clearly explained by an instruction to "do them" first. You don't "do" parentheses. But there is another comment above that I'm curious about: "the term more commonly used in the rest of the English-speaking world". What term is that?

In the US, we talk about (parentheses), [brackets], and {braces} all of which are sometimes used as symbols of grouping and all of which have other uses. Parentheses are used both for points (a,b) and for open intervals (a,b) and there is no way to tell which use is intended except from context. Brackets are use for closed intervals [a,b]. Braces are use for sets {a,b} and an open brace is used for a system of simultaneous equations. (Parenthetic aside, off topic: My students are no longer taught much vocabulary in the US K-12 system, so I now have to say, instead of "brackets", "square brackets" and instead of "braces", "curly braces", for my students to know what I'm talking about.

Wikipedia should have an article titled "Symbols of grouping". I'll think about creating one. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

See https://editorsmanual.com/articles/brackets-british-vs-american/ or parentheses for the answer to your question. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Help from a mathematician?

At one point, I spent a substantial amount of time rewriting this article to make it mathematically accurate. Other editors immediately reverted my rewrite and reinserted incorrect information, apparently on the grounds that it was what they were taught in grade school.

I would really like not to have to continue teaching my college classes that the things they were taught in grade school are wrong, and I think good Wikipedia articles would be a step in the right direction, since most of my students use Wikipedia. But the fans of parentheses as operations rather than symbols of grouping will, as can be seen above, argue illogically and interminably.

Will anyone who actually knows something about logic and mathematics help? Or should I give up and move on to another article? Rick Norwood (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I obtained a doctoral degree in mathematics long ago and was concerned with formal languages and first-order predicate logic as an essential part of my professional work, so you may well consider me a mathematician. I agree that parantheses aren't operators, and some of my contributions to this article consist in defusing claims implying the contrary. The change of "Parenthetical subexpressions" to "Parantheses", which was the trigger of our above discussion, can hardly re-introduce the confusion of considering parantheses as operation, imo. - So I wonder, whether you have any particular sentences in mind that should be changed? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I also have an advanced degree in Mathematics, but only the at MSc level. I taught calculus and pre-calculus at the college level for a half-dozen years and operator precedence was part of the curriculum, but it was a very small part and I don't recall spending more than a few minutes on it. It was a long time ago, and until recently I had never heard of PEMDAS and it's variants.

One immediate edit that I might suggest is to replace

Whether inside parenthesis or not, the operator that is higher in the above list should be applied first.

with

Whether inside parenthesis or not, the operation that is higher in the above list should be applied first.

I don't know that this will resolve things to everyone's satisfaction, but perhaps it would be a step in the right direction. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

That would probably be an improvement, but the correct statement is this: if there is an operator both to the left and to the right of a given expression, the operator higher on the list should be applied first. If both operators are on the same level, the associative law applies, and applying either first gives the same results. The main point that it is perfectly all right to add two numbers somewhere in an expression before you perform a multiplication somewhere else entirely.

I'm going to make a change, and we'll see what happens next. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The changes made before my recent change seem to have greatly improved the first section of the article. I've tried to improve the Definition section. Further changes are welcome. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This is an elementary article, and it must remain elementary. This is the reason of my revert of your recent edit, which introduced the concept of precedence. Also, the first sentence of section § Definition was subject of a consensus here in april 2023, and you provide no reason to change it. Nevertheless, I made two changes at the end of this first paragraph:

• The order ... is used ... : who says that or "the order of the pages of a book is used to read it". I have replaced "used" with "results from a convention adopted".
• I have replaced "expressed" with "summarized". This makes clear that the list that follows is a mnemonic, and that, for understanding the meaning of each item, one must read the paragraphs that follow the list.

More generally, the question that seems behind this recurrent discussion seems: Is a grouping operator (parentheses) an operation? Clearly, this does not belong to this article, as this depends on mathematical definitions of the two terms. So, the article must be written in a way that avoids this difficult and (in my opinion) unimportant question. D.Lazard (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is an elementary article, i.e. the likely audience is the general population, not mathematicians.

I also agree that whether applying a grouping symbol (parentheses) is an operation depends on whether you're using this definition or the plain language meaning of the word operation. Since this article is an elementary article, using plain language terminology is appropriate. And agree that it is an unimportant question.

Finally, I agree that we reached consensus about the first sentence in the Definition section several months ago. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, well. It takes a long time to do a carefully rewrite, and only seconds to revert it. Apparently, even though we all agree that parentheses are not an operation, there are enough people who want this article to say that that it keeps going back in. This time I am going to do just one thing, remove the claim that parentheses are an operation. We'll see what happens next. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

My previous edit stood for more than an hour, so I'm going to start moving the material in this article that says nothing about the order of operations to the article titled symbols of grouping.Rick Norwood (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added references. If reverted again, I'll add another reference and restore what makes sense.

Mr. Swordfish argues that, since this is an elementary article we do not need to limit "operation" to the mathematical meaning. We can use the dictionary meaning. But the title of the article uses "operations" in the mathematical meaning, not the dictionary meaning, and so the article should do the same.

Mr. Swordfish and several others share a consensus that there is a difference between a mathematical operation and a symbol of grouping. Why, then, does he keep adding Parentheses to the list of mathematical operations? What does he think that adds to the article? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This is extremely simple.

Every source we cite includes parentheses (or brackets) as the first priority.

Our job as editors is to re-state what the cited sources say. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary. No reliable mathematical source says parentheses are operations. You are the only person who says this.

It is true that essentially all US grade school textbooks list parentheses in their order of operations. They also have many other mistakes, such as forcing students to add from left to right. The people in power, who decide the grade school curriculum, want things the way they have always been. But Wikipedia uses professional terminology, not grade school terminology. Why do you want Wikipedia to repeat grade school mistakes? Rick Norwood (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There would be a controversial assertion if the article would list parentheses as an operation. This is definitively not the case, as the numbered list in section § definition is not a list of operations, but a mnemonic for remembering the order in which operations must be performed. This is clearly stated. Please stop your edit war against several consensuses, and do not try to justify it by considerations that do not reflect the content of the article. ~~ D.Lazard (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

How is forcing anyone to add from left to right a mistake? True, if a string of operation only contains additions, then adding from left to right or right to left makes no difference. But as a general rule, if a series of operation contains a mix of additions and subtractions, then doing it from right to left will likely give you the wrong answer. So forcing the "left to right" rule will guarantee the right answer in the general case. Dhrm77 (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added another reference. The Common Core does not include PEDMAS. Teachers teach PEDMAS because they teach what they were taught and books include PEDMAS because teachers like it. But it is not in the Common Core and the fact that it is wrong has been pointed out many times.

I'm surprised to find D. Lazard on the other side of this question, since he is an editor I respect. I can only suggest he Google "is pedmas correct" or "is pedmas still in common core".

As for the article not saying Parentheses are operations, read the section carefully. Here is what it says:

"The order of operations, that is, the order in which the operations in a formula must be performed, results from a convention adopted throughout mathematics, science, technology and many computer programming languages. It is summarized as:[1][5][6]

   Parentheses
   Exponentiation
   Multiplication and Division
   Addition and Subtraction"

Clearly, the implication is that the summarized list is a list of operations.

But the main point is that the Common Core has abandoned PEDMAS, that many sources say clearly that PEDMAS is wrong, and there is no good reason to perpetuate this error. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It is your own opinion that this list must be interpreted as a list of operations. This is explicitly contradicted by the next sentence: This means that to evaluate an expression, one first evaluates any sub-expression inside parentheses, working inside to outside if there is more than one set. Also, an initialism, such as PEDMAS cannot be wrong by itself; the problem with it is that it can be misleading if interpreted as a list of operations (what it is not). In any case, as PEDMAS is not mentioned in the current version before section § Mnemonics, you cannnot use your opinion on PEDMAS to force modifications of sections that do not mention PEDMAS at all. D.Lazard (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, you have made up your mind. I wish you would at least took at the references, and the other changes you reverted, which moved discussions of symbols of grouping. As things stand, unless someone else supports the view I support, which is the view of the Common Core document, then this article will continue to mislead readers.

Yes, a consensus is important. But in Wikipedia, authoritative references are even more important. And I am pretty sure that no mathematical publication, as distinct from a grade school publication, has the list with parentheses at the top. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer to start the section with "The order of evaluation, that is, ..." (change suggestion underlined). I believe to remember that recently I made such an edit, but apparently it got reverted somehow. - d Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to call the section "Definition" then we need to start with a definition of the words that compose the title of the article, e.g. "The order of operations is [expository text goes here]."

My take is that the first sentence of the article serves quite adequately as the definition:

In mathematics and computer programming, the order of operations (or operator precedence) is a collection of rules that reflect conventions about which procedures to perform first in order to evaluate a given mathematical expression.

making the Definition section redundant, and that the "Definition" section is really more of an overview or synopsis than a definition. If we rename it, then I'm fine with your suggested terminology. More generally, if replacing operator and operation with synonyms like process, procedure, or evaluation helps resolve the recent disagreements then perhaps it's the right approach. That said, we're writing the article for our readers, not ourselves, and perhaps throwing in too many synonyms will be confusing to newcomers. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"-In mathematics and computer programming, the order of operations (or operator precedence) is a collection of rules that reflect conventions about which procedures to perform first in order to evaluate a given mathematical expression."

There is missing what needs to be done, if operations are on the same level (Multiplication and Divsion e.g). The people here avoid to give a statment in the rules, instead of write the definition of rules, the mix definition and implementation of rules...this makes the article not very easy to understand. Goldnas (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

left to right

I am not surprised that my removing the false information "operations with the same precedence are generally performed left to right" was reverted. So many people have been taught that false "rule" in grade school that many people insist that what they learned in grade school is true. But all mathematicians know that addition is commutative and associative and multiplication is commutative and associative, and mathematicians generally perform operations in whatever order is most convenient.

It is a bit ironic that I think 12/6*2 = 4, which is what you get when you perform operations left to right. But most physicists insist that 12/6*2 = 1. Of course, my reasoning has nothing to do with left to right. It makes sense to me that subtraction is addition of the opposite and division is multiplication by the reciprocal. It is strange that after all these centuries, there is nobody who can settle the question. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You might see from my edit summary that my reason for the revert was that your new text was flawed, too (as was/is the previous text). If you come up with a better suggestion how to fix the false information, I won't object.

As for your 2nd paragraph above, there is no question to be settled - it is very common in mathematics that different authors introduce different ("local") conventions and use them afterwards. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Mathematics is a human language and like any other human language there are variations and no universal "correct" standard. This article presents a set of conventions that are not universally applicable as there is not a set of rules that are universally applicable.

Also agree that the current wording is flawed. Where there is a specification to be followed (e.g. computer languages, spreadsheet and other number crunching software) almost everything evaluates addition/subtraction left-to-right (with subtraction interpreted as adding the inverse)* while other non-transitive operations such as division and exponentiation are sometimes left-to-right and sometimes right-to-left. Hence all those ambiguous memes that have everybody arguing on facebook.

In short, there is no convention for evaluating expressions like 12/6*2. And we shouldn't imply that there is.

Perhaps we should say something like addition and subtraction is usually performed left-to-right but there is no general agreement for division or exponentiation. We'd need a good source to back it up, and it may be a distraction this early in the article. Or we could just remove the sentence. Not really sure what is the best approach.

• And when done this way, there's no need for a rule since you get the same result due to associativity.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for "But most physicists insist that 12/6*2 = 1."? 62.46.182.236 (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, very strange that this claim went unchallenged!

Unless perhaps something has changed very drastically in the decades since I studied physics that would explain such a claim? I have heard that physics is in a bad shape, and this would explain a lot. So I would be happy to be enlightened. 118.208.8.117 (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Standards from the style sheets of academic journals in Mathematics, Physic and Engineering

Since the style sheets of academic journals in mathematics, physics and engineering all agree since about 1920, I'm not sure why this is still so controversial.

I haven't seen any variance in the rules used by journals in the relevant fields, I think it is fairly clear

 Groupings (parenthesis, brackets, fraction bars)
 Unary Subtraction
 Exponents
 Juxtaposition (also called implied multiplication)
 Multiplication and Division
 Addition and Subtraction
 - when calculations are of equal precedence they are resolved from left to right
 - and the clarification that multiple exponents are read from the top down  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:8300:8C50:DC15:E3C6:CE13:601F (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 

I would like to see the source for this. I do know that some physics journals prioritize juxtaposition but have never seen a math journal that did. There is no such operation as "unary subtraction". Subtraction is a binary operation. The unary minus is "negation". Rick Norwood (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to see the source for this quote. My take is that if there really was an agreed upon standard we wouldn't see the variation among computer programming languages - the people who write the language specs are certainly capable of reading and applying a standard. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Programming languages have different constraints than mathematical publication. In particular, the basic operators (+, -, *, /) do not obey the associative law: integer calculations can overflow depending on association, and floating-point calculations can give different results. So unlike in mathematics, how operations associate is important. Different languages also have different philosophies about reordering operations: some specify the order precisely, others allow the implementation to reorder. Again, this is not relevant to mathematics. Finally, mathematicians simply avoid writing anything ambiguous, whereas programming languages must accept any input they're given.

So I don't think you can draw conclusions about mathematical notation by looking at what programming languages do. --Macrakis (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, that 'quote' was me. I didn't intend it as a quote but as a generalization of many sources I've read. I guess I'm a noob in the Wikipedia editing system. First off, I did mean "unary minus" not "unary subtraction"; and also that line is wrong because -3^2 is -(3^2) not (-3)^2. So yes, that line is wrong or out of order. Second, I think exponents should be considered a type of grouping like fraction bars are. Third multiplication by Juxtaposition does seem to come before multiplication and division every where I check. Because 6/2n always means 6/(2n) not 3/n. 2601:180:8300:8C50:A1C5:F1DD:560E:BA72 (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

An interesting example is Physical Review Style and Notation Guide which says Multiplication *always* precedes division but also prohibits all multiplication signs except for a very special case involving line wraps inside an equation. So in this guide multiplication comes before division but all multiplication is by juxtaposition. 2601:180:8300:8C50:A1C5:F1DD:560E:BA72 (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In physics they have their own rules. In mathematics, different rules. The only way to deal with this situation rationally is to use parentheses, e.g. 6/(2n) or (6/2)n. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

An expression such as $x/2y$ unambiguously means $x/(2y),$ and readers have no trouble interpreting this in ordinary circumstances, irrespective of whether they are in physics, mathematics, or any other field. If the other meaning were intended, it should instead be written ${\tfrac {1}{2}}xy$ or ${\tfrac {x}{2}}y$ or $(x/2)y,$ etc. –jacobolus (t) 03:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd never call "$x/2y$" unambiguous. If I meant "$x/(2y)$", I'd prefer to write "${\tfrac {x}{2y}}$" to make that clear. If you have to write a program implementing some computation from some physics paper, and you come across "$x/2y$", you better complain the ambiguity to its author than translate it to the most similar x / 2 * y. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It was perfectly unambiguous until people started disagreeing on the interpretation, just like what happened to the words "trapezium" and "billion" (which, incidentally, all stem from the United States. What's up with that?). $x/2y$ means $x/(2y)$, and if you wanted/intended $0.5*x*y$ then explicitly write out the multiplication symbol, $x/2*y$. 203.218.11.233 (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Is the trapezoid controversy you are talking about whether to consider a parallelogram a kind of trapezoid, or the controversy about whether "trapezoid" means the same as "trapezium" or whether it should mean a quadrilateral with no parallel sides?

The ancient Greek "exclusive" definition where a trapezia can't have more than one pair of parallel sides is a bad one IMO, comparable to the bad choice of definition that 1 (one), as a "unit", was not really a "number". –jacobolus (t) 17:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I can not find the specific sentence "Multiplication *always* precedes division". Can someone help out? 62.46.182.236 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Mixing of the rule, the implementation of the rules within different areas (calculator, programming languages)

The sentence "Calculators generally perform operations with the same precedence from left to right,[1] but some programming languages and calculators adopt different conventions. " does not fit where it is placed. The order of operation should apply on mathematical rules in general and not what calculators do in general. This is very confusing because by reading this, I only care on the rules and not what calculators do. Also, in this sentence you mix calculators (what the do most), rules within programming languages which does only explain, an implementation of the rules above. What I can not read, if the rules from left to right by the order of operation is a general rule. So this article for me explains nothing.

It would be much better to have a own section for *calculator* and what the do most, then an extra section for IT and maybe which language rules per default implements different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldnas (talk • contribs) 11:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The rulset itself, the implementation of the rulsets (as described in the article) are different things. Isn't it? Goldnas (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand your concerns. Indeed, this article is about rules for interpreting formulas in view of doing the implied computation. The considered formulas consist of sequences of numbers (or variables representing them) and arithmetic operators that can be read by a human as well by a computer or a calculator. These rules are conventions, which means that human and computers can use different rules, and, depending of the context, different rules may be used. This is what is said in the article. The implementation of such rules is a very different thing it consist to write a program that follows the rules for interpreting formula. This is usually called an interpreter or a compiler, and it is not the subject of the article. D.Lazard (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to see general

• DEFINITION RULE which needs to be done if we have DIFFERENT precedence
• DEFINITION RULE which needs to be executed if operation on SAME precedence

What I do not want to see here, if some calculators or same programming langauge IMPLEMENTATION OF Rule in calculators, in programming language. There is a own section for calculators and for programming language. But the general rule is not written down. The DEFINITION of equal precedence is mixed with IMPLEMENTATION in calculators and programming langauge.

It does not matter if humans or calculators read rules somehow. It is about the definition of rules.

Therefor the current article is not well written it is unclear and if you would refere to this article it would raise more questions like give answers. E.g.

If you refere to this article, some people might say: Yes, but there is not clear definition. Read the sentence:

"Calculators generally perform operations with the same precedence from left to right"

It does not say "Calculators always perform operations with the same precedence from left to right" which means to me, that there is no clear rule because not all calculators do the right thing. So this means I am right If I calculator 60/5*(2+1) I can do the result of 4.

You cannot prove that I am wrong and this article also prove nothing. There no sentence of the rule of evaluate operations on equal precedence, there is only a example of how some calculators and programming languages while it should be the sentence:

On higher ranked operations, evaluate from high to low, on equal rankted operations, evaluate from left to right. That would be a rule which I could implement in any programming language even on those who are not invented yet. Any developer would reject your definition and would ask the same question: How should the computer work if the operations ranked equally? And you would respond: from left to right. So lets write the article clean. The implemtation of rules is in the section available anyhow. Why write same things twice? Makes no sense at all. Goldnas (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The convention for precedence varies from one context to another. The conventions in grade-school mnemonic mantras, pure-math papers, electronic calculators, and various programming languages all differ in various ways. –jacobolus (t) 21:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not a convention thing. There are rules to execute. I could not implement the ruleset because there is no fully ruleset. And this is an easy one.

60/5*(2+1) evalutes

60/5*3 and then you have (as you can see) 2 opertion on the same level. It should be 100% clear what to do with operations on same level. This rule which is important is not described in the article. And not, this rules do not change, no matter if it is grade-school or pure-math papers. Whatever. The rule for what needs to be done on same level is missing here. Goldnas (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The "rules" (i.e. conventions) are not universal, but vary depending on the context. –jacobolus (t) 21:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do you double the statements. The statements about calculator and programming languages are in the other sections as well. Should't we remove it at all? Goldnas (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the result of 60/5*3? Goldnas (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I would typically interpret $60/5\cdot 3$ to mean $60/15=4$ in a technical document, and even more so if it were written in terms of variables like $a/bc.$ In a computer program, 60/5*3 instead typically means 12*3 == 36.

The interpretation depends on the context, and an expression like $60/5\cdot 3$ is somewhat ambiguous and often would be better to replace with a more explicit expression such as ${\tfrac {60}{5}}\cdot 3,$ ${\tfrac {60}{5\cdot 3}},$ $60/(5\cdot 3),$ or $(60/5)\cdot 3,$ depending on intention. –jacobolus (t) 22:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

But in this case, the section makes also no sense. In this case we would need to remove the sentence. Why? Because in section Calculators and Programming Languages the precedence is described. Goldnas (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The fun part is, that in footnote 11 the write exact the same as I write. So we give a source how it should be done based on the same rule I wrote multiple times in the article but you revert it. Did you read the sources of this article and studied, if there is no contradiction?

Quote:

"BODMAS is an acronyn that serves as a reminder of the order in which operations have to be

carried out when working with equations and formulas:

Brackets pOwers Division Multiplication Addition Subtraction

where division and multiplication have the same priority, and so do addition and subtraction. If

you have several operations of the same priority then you work from left to right."

Sure that we want fo write different in the article compared to its sources? Goldnas (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The sections are already their, my bad. But I still believe it does not fit. It is a repeation of the section below. The rule is missing. Goldnas (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Programming languages

Logical OR and logical AND are non-associative and therefore should have equal precedence. Darcourse (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Logical AND typically binds tighter than logical OR, because people like to write expressions like A && B || C && D and have that mean (A && B) || (C && D). It's possible there's some programming language where this doesn't hold, but it would be mildly practically inconvenient. –jacobolus (t) 15:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Source

"In academic literature, multiplication denoted by juxtaposition (also known as implied multiplication) is interpreted as having higher precedence than division, so that 1 ÷ 2n equals 1 ÷ (2n), not (1 ÷ 2)n. For example, the manuscript submission instructions for the Physical Review journals state that multiplication is of higher precedence than division,[28]"

I looked at the source, and yes, it says that multiplication is of higher precedence than division. However, it does NOT say that this is only true in cases where there is implied multiplication. The phrase "for example" implies that this source should support the previous sentence, which is does not.

The other (unlinked) sources in the paragraph again support multiplication having higher precedence than division, though whether implied multiplication is relevant is unspecified. That leaves the claim with no supporting source. 50.86.240.11 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The only thing that is clear is that insisting that multiplication takes precedence over division, whether in some cases or in all cases, leads to endless argument and confusion. What sources say is: avoid ambiguity. In physics, the matter may be decided, but not in mathematics. And it seems to me unnecessary to have one rule for some disciplines and a different rule for other disciplines. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, multiplication is typically taken to have higher precedence than division, and this essentially never causes confusion except (a) for introductory students who are not yet used to ordinary notational conventions of written mathematics, and (b) in viral facebook images using notation that is never used in practice, aimed at bored laypeople who only vaguely remember anything they learned in school. –jacobolus (t) 22:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"multiplication is typically taken to have higher precedence than division" there is no proove for that claim. Executing symbols logically it is exact the other way around. If you take physics into account, onle from left to right can be right.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/binaryOps.html 62.46.182.236 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a mathematician. My comment about what mathematicians do and what physicists do is based on my experience, and is not something I'm trying to add to the article. The article should simply state that there are two views on the subject. Actually, three views, since some people evaluate 6/2*x differently from 6/2x.

The "left to right" rule is simply wrong, in mathematics, physics, and in everyday arithmetic. The correct rules are that addition and multiplication are commutative and associative and pure addition and pure multiplication can be done in any order. Nobody familiar with numbers is going to evaluate 5 x 765 x 2 from left to right.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Don Koks' argument about the meaning of "1/2 second" doesn't seem fully baked to me. I would interpret "1/2 second" to probably mean (1/2) second, but in the opposite direction, I would interpret "1 meter / 2 seconds" to probably mean (1/2) meters/second, not (1/2) meters·seconds. Either of these would be improved by better typography: "${\tfrac {1}{2}}$ seconds" is entirely unambiguous. –jacobolus (t) 14:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Treatment of internet memes

An editor recently removed this from the lead, stating that it was unnecessary.

My take is that a majority of the traffic to this page is a result of an argument over some ambiguous internet meme. I don't have anything to back this up, it's just a hunch.

Anyway, it seems worth discussing here on the talk page - should this one-sentence treatment be in the lead? I think it should. Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Internet memes should not be in the lead section. They are nowhere close to an essential part of understanding the topic. Including 1–2 sentences somewhere in the article body is more than sufficient.

Moreover, "knowyourmeme" etc. are not reliable sources. See WP:KNOWYOURMEME. –jacobolus (t) 22:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Jacobolus. Your comment on your recent edit seems to be a reference to my most recent edit, but none of the things you deleted were caused by my most recent edit, which only changed a single word. I don't think I wrote anything you deleted, though I wouldn't swear to it. I have no objection to taking out all the references to the internet memes, though they may be of interest as a minor point later in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rick Norwood I think maybe you were editing from a previous version of the page and didn't de-conflict the intermediate edits? Your change special:diff/1206338161 was essentially a revert of the previous several edits. If what you were trying to do was add a link to the "resource center" tutoring webpage, I don't think that counts as a reliable source. –jacobolus (t) 23:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rick Norwood Is it okay with you if we say that implied multiplication "typically" binds tighter than division in academic literature? I personally have never seen a counter-example (with the exception of computer code), and have surely read at least hundreds of examples of papers using notation like a / bc to mean a / (bc), across a variety of technical fields. –jacobolus (t) 01:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of the sources I am familiar with (in pure mathematics) disagree that it is standard, pointing out numerous problems with the idea. But the important point is that it is ambiguous, and has no advantages. How much harder is it to type a/(bc) than to type the ambiguous a/bc?

Rick Norwood (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a source making this claim? Or an example of a source which implicitly uses the opposite convention that $a/bc=(a/b)c$? I see these expressions which you claim are ambiguous all the time in pure mathematics works (and computer science, and applied math, and engineering, ...), from the 18th century down to the present day, and have never once seen an example where this the intended interpretation was the other way. Thus this is not really ambiguous in practice; the convention is well established and widely understood. The advantage is that it reduces clutter, which can sometimes be tremendously helpful. –jacobolus (t) 02:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to add more context to this section. Still skimming sources. –jacobolus (t) 06:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've expanded those sections a bit, added more sources, and taken out most of the questionable self-published sources. Sorry for the history spam, folks: when I reread paragraphs I second-guess the previous wording, and end up making repeated passes of minor changes. –jacobolus (t) 20:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this quite a bit. Your rewrite has improved the article greatly, and as it stands, I have no strong objection. The bigger problem is that every math book used in K-12 education in the United States lies to its students. For example, they all say that parentheses are an "operation", just like addition and multiplication. And they all say that you must do parentheses first, which is impossible in a problem such as 2+3+(x+y). And they all say you must work from left to right, which is ridiculous in a problem like 283+389-283.

However, getting back to the question at hand. As you not, the problem only occurs with the use of the solidus. I've just glanced through several math books, and they almost always use a horizontal fraction like. I haven't found one that uses x/2 instead of 1⁄2x or x⁄2.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Oops. I could not get Wikipedia to use a horizontal fraction bar. But in the three examples I gave, even thought they use a solidus, they use the solidus in a way such that there is no ambiguity.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

(You can get a vertically stacked "inline" size fraction using <math>\tfrac12 x</math> which renders as ${\tfrac {1}{2}}x$ or using {{math|{{sfrac|1|2}}''x''}} which renders as ⁠1/2⁠x.)

All of the forms $x/2,$ ${\tfrac {x}{2}},$ and ${\tfrac {1}{2}}x$ are quite common in books and papers in pure math, in contexts where a full-sized fraction wouldn't fit or where vertical space is at a premium; this includes not only "inline" equations in running prose, but also within "display" style equations in nested fractions, superscripts, limits of sums, etc. One of the results that popped up in a web search about order of operations was a quora or stackexchange discussion (can't remember which) in which one participant did some examination of several papers by Fields Medalists, and found multiple examples of fractions like $a/bc$ meaning $a/(bc).$ In my experience this convention is an unremarkable feature of mathematical writing, and is not confusing in practice. –jacobolus (t) 15:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

As to your comment about ~5th–8th grade textbooks: you are right that they are typically misleading about this topic. The issue is that mathematicians use notation as a form of communication, whereas middle school textbooks use mathematical notation as a set of prescriptivist rules. The rules established by someone trying to make something very precisely specified don't necessarily match the practical usage of a community of writers. This is similar to the problem of setting down prescriptivist "grammar rules" and teaching them to students; many such rules are routinely violated in professional writing. –jacobolus (t) 15:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish I've made a bunch of other changes relevant to the ambiguity of multiplication/division, internet memes about it, and related topics. Does the current version address your concern, or do you still think the memes are under-discussed? @D.Lazard, @Jochen Burghardt do these recent changes seem okay to you, or are there parts that seem problematic? –jacobolus (t) 02:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Meanwhile, I've lost overview, but it seems your edits were fine. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the material that is currently there is very good and your edits are an improvement - including the quote from Hung-Hsi Wu in particular.

Here's my take: When I edit articles on Wikipedia, I try to keep the likely audience in mind. Of course, I don't have any audience research data to go by so my idea of the likely audience may by off base, but then nobody else has that research data either so we need to respect others' opinions if they are different than ours. For this article, I don't think the typical reader is a mathematician, scientist, or engineer. I do think that a significant percentage of our visitors are here to answer the question "What is the answer to that stupid math formula on facebook?" If I am correct about this, then as a service to our audience we should make it easy to find that answer.

One way to make that easy was to include a single sentence in the lede. I'm sure that there are other ways. Right now, it's somewhat buried as the last paragraph of the second subsection of the second section and my preference would be to make it easier for the readers to find it. I'm open to other ways to make it more easily discoverable, but a single short sentence in the lede seems to be the simplest way to address my concern. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think that would be "undue weight" in an article about order of operations. But plausibly this facebook meme could be its own article (there are several reliable sources discussing it) if you really think it would be helpful to people. –jacobolus (t) 22:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's sufficiently notable to have it's own article, and I don't know that there's much more to say about it than the current paragraph so the article would probably permanently remain a stub. I wouldn't object is someone created it, but I wouldn't advocate for it. And then there's the practical problem of how to title such an article so that people looking for it can find it - I can't think of one.

As for undue weight, from what I've seen the only people discussing this topic on line (other than here at this talk page) are the ones arguing about "that stupid math problem on facebook". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion Wikipedia shouldn't decide on how to organize or fill articles based on what people discuss on social media. YMMV. –jacobolus (t) 00:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I can respect that opinion, but it's orthogonal to the question of undue weight which is what I was responding to.

My take is that we should serve the audience as opposed to creating the platonic ideal of the perfect article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

To quote WP:UNDUE, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." I think mentioning this topic at all is entirely sufficient, and promoting it to the lead doesn't seem justified to me. Maybe we should take the question to a more visible venue like WT:WPM for more feedback, if you think this seems like a controversial position. –jacobolus (t) 05:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Point taken about WP:Undue. Been a while since I read it.

As for taking it to Wiki Project Mathematics, I have no objections but I'm also satisfied if we settle it here on this talk page. So far my concern seems to have been met with a MEH? and if that's the case so be it. If anyone else wants to weigh in I'm sure they know how. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@D.Lazard, @Jochen Burghardt – any thoughts on including a sentence about facebook memes in the lead section? –jacobolus (t) 07:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Another thing that might be helpful is more images. A picture of such a meme directly might help readers find the relevant discussion (though this might be gratuitously distracting).

Another type of image that would be nice would be a diagram showing the relation between a mathematical expression and a generated expression tree, maybe even a simple and a more complicated example could be pictured. –jacobolus (t) 22:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

ISO 80000

Should we be including ISO standards in the "Mixed division and multiplication"? The standards include authoritative answers to some of the questions and ambiguities, for instance 80000-2-(9.6) states that '÷' "should not be used" for division (see division sign) and 80000-1 (7.1.3) states that the solidus "shall not be followed by a multiplication sign or a division sign on the same line unless parentheses are inserted to avoid any ambiguity". Unfortunately the standards aren't freely available and I have only come across snippets that others have posted elsewhere. StuartH (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems fine to mention, though I'm not sure anyone follows this per se, in practice. –jacobolus (t) 06:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added as a minor update for now - I think you're right that very few people even know about the standard but it is still the standard and probably warrants a mention. StuartH (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Picture

I like the idea of a picture at the top of the page, and I even like the picture. But, sadly, it seems much too complicated for readers who are not mathematicians. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe something like this?

http://sweeneymath.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-i-see-exponent-rules-and-log-rules.html

Rick Norwood (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the picture. I agree it could be better. A couple of possibilities I can imagine are (1) relation of a (not too) complicated expression to a tree (cf. binary expression tree, parse tree) which is effectively what the order of operations describes, (2) a [slow] animation showing evaluation of a numerical example from inside outward. –jacobolus (t) 16:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Syntax trees of expressions can be found at commons:Category:Syntax_trees, e.g. commons:Exp-tree-ex-11.svg. Imo, any animation [no matter at which speed] severly distracts a reader's attention - so, while it is a good idea to provide an animation as you described, it is a bad idea to let it run within the article. Instead, it could be put in the category, and its name could be linked from the article. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

One concern with a tree is that it might be confusing to some of the intended audience. –jacobolus (t) 17:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

You have a point there. What about modifying the current image such that in each line, one subexpression is evaluated? We'd need to replace "a" by some number for this (*); and probably we'd start from a less involved expression. If the changed parts are highlighted, an impression of a tree-like structure will arise (somewhat like in the right part of the bottommost picture), but without the need to talk about the concept of syntax tree.

(*) BTW: Maybe, we should mention somewhere in the article that only ground expressions can be evaluated, independent of the picture issue? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

history section

@Gronk Oz – can you find better sources for the claims you are making here? One of your sources is a (non-expert) university professor's personal website repeating the claims of your other link, an email from Dave Peterson, a former software engineer and community college teacher who was part of the "Ask Dr. Math" team, which is now defunct but with some of the same people at the website themathdoctors.org. None of these is a peer reviewed source, or really cites its sources, and while I think Ask Dr. Math / The Math Doctors was/is a nice website, it doesn't really meet Wikipedia's "reliable sources" standard. I don't think this history seems quite right, which is unsurprising for an informal email reply from a hobbyist (as compared to e.g. a professional historian doing careful research and publishing in a peer-reviewed journal). –jacobolus (t) 19:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jacobolus: I agree these are not great sources. I thought the absence of a History section was a real deficiency in this article, so I wanted to get the ball rolling with what sources I could find. Now that I look into it further, there is what looks like a good resource at web.archive.org/web/20020621160940/http://members.aol.com/jeff570/operation.html - while it is still a blog-style entry, it refers to a number of published works that would be worth following up - especially A History of Mathematical Notations (1928-1929) by Florian Cajori. Unfortunately, I don't have access to those, so I will keep looking.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I have found an online archive of the Cajori book at archive.org/details/historyofmathema031756mbp/mode/2up. But it will take some time until I can address this, since I am caught up with real-life matters at the moment. I will try to get to it when I can, unless somebody else wants to... --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The relevant part of Jeff Miller's site (one of the best sources on the web about the history of mathematical terms) is now at https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Miller/ – this page specifically is https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Miller/mathsym/operation/ –jacobolus (t) 04:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)