• nLuLukna
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah I haven no idea what I was saying when I said that, I’ve edited my comment a bit.

    On that note though using your example I think I can illistarte the point I was trying to make earlier.

    1 + (2*3) by always doing multiplication first we can remove those brackets.

    (1 + 2) * 3 can be rewritten as (1 * 3 )+ (2 * 3) so using the first rule again makes a sense. That is a crappy explaination but I think you get my gist.

    • Kogasa
      link
      fedilink
      -11 year ago

      Your point is not clear.

      1 + (2 * 3) by always doing addition first we can remove those brackets.

      (1 * 3) + (2 * 3) can be rewritten as (1 + 2) * 3 so using the first rule again makes sense.

      Do you see the issue?

      • nLuLukna
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I don’t see it mate. So you’re going to have to tell me, sorry.

        The point I’m trying to make is that using Pemdas/Bedmas is the most effiecent way of removing brackets - I actually don’t 100% know that but I doubt it creates hundreds of brackets - if thats slightly clearer.

        • Kogasa
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          I don’t know how else to explain it. I used your own argument verbatim but with the opposite assumption, that addition takes priority over multiplication. In either case, some expressions can be written without parentheses which require parentheses in the other case.

          • nLuLukna
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Right well that makes sense. And is also a very good point. I don’t really see why you couldn’t do that. So I guess it is arbitrary. Although you then have the question of which case occurs more commonly, which is imo actually quite interesting, but also entirely pointless, since good luck showing one case to be more than the other. It’s like that door and wheel question.