There’s always an implied “them” hiding the conspiracy as well. It’s just a couple of short steps from flat earth to “jews will not replace us”.

I assumed sleep apnea. CPAP users of today are the past’s “dang he died mysteriously in his sleep, oh well!”

Wow you’re a slow reader LOL

I’ll take that as admission that you’re too unintelligent to read.

I stopped reading your comment when I saw you still hadn’t read the article.

I’ll read your comment when you read the article. Challenge level: impossible.

Why would I bother to read your comment when I know it’s wrong?

Skimmed your comment and it’s wrong. Let me know if you ever decide to read the article instead of arguing against an imagined opponent.

You look like a real idiot here. I really suggest you actually read the article instead of “scanning” it. You clearly don’t even understand the term “implicit multiplication” if you’re claiming it’s made up. Implicit multiplication is not the controversial part of this equation, which you would know if you read the article and understood what people in this thread are even talking about. Stop spamming your shitty blog and just. Read. The. Article.

Read the linked article

It’s actually fine to do multiplication before division, you just have to be sure about which numbers are intended to be included in the divisor of your fraction!

c/TheyDidAMath

I’m a scientist and I’ve only ever encountered strong juxtaposition in quick scribbles where everyone knows the equation already. Normally we’re very careful to use fraction notation (or parentheses) when there’s any possibility of ambiguity. I read the equation and was shocked that anyone would get an answer other than 9.

I originally had the same reasoning but came to the opposite conclusion. Multiplication and division have the same precedence, so I read the operations from left to right unless noted otherwise with parentheses. Thus:

6/2=3

3(1+2)=9

For me to read the whole of 2(1+2) as the denominator in a fraction I would expect it to be isolated in parentheses: 6/(2(1+2)).

Reading the blog post, I understand the ambiguity now, but i’m still fascinated that we had the same criticism (no parentheses implies intent) but had opposite conclusions.

Great write up! The answer is use parentheses or fractions and stop wasting everyone’s time 😅