Presuming PEMDAS is our order of operations and the 5 next to the parentheses indicates multiplication…
2+5(8-5) -> 2+5(3) -> 2+15=17
Other than adding a multiplication indicator next to the left parentheses for clarification (I believe it’s * for programming and text chat purposes, a miniature “x” or dot for pen and paper/traditional calculators), this seems fine, yeah.
…I worry about how many people may not understand how to solve equations like these.
Some forms of programming syntax, although there are the fringe cases where an equation (or function in programming) is represented by a symbol in conjunction with a parentheses input.
For example:
y(x) = 2*x+3
5+y(1) = 10, as 1 is substituted in for x in the prior equation.
The way I was taught growing up, brackets are [these]. Parenthesis are (these).
Yes, technically the latter are also brackets. But they can also be called parenthesis, whereas the former is exclusively a bracket. So we were taught to call them separate words to differentiate while doing equations.
I don’t think you’re right. The wiki page literally uses a similar equation as an example of “elementary arithmetic.” It also uses a similar one, but with variables, as an example in “elementary algebra.” That implies that yes, this is arithmetic, and the introduction of variables is what makes it algebra.
It doesn’t matter what course finally teaches it to you. That could be just out of convenience, not by definition part of that domain. It’s been ages since I took it, though I could swear I learned this in pre-algebra (meaning before algebra), or earlier. I could be wrong on this though. Again, it’s been a very long time.
Presuming PEMDAS is our order of operations and the 5 next to the parentheses indicates multiplication…
2+5(8-5) -> 2+5(3) -> 2+15=17
Other than adding a multiplication indicator next to the left parentheses for clarification (I believe it’s * for programming and text chat purposes, a miniature “x” or dot for pen and paper/traditional calculators), this seems fine, yeah.
…I worry about how many people may not understand how to solve equations like these.
While I never failed a math class, I also never went past high school. When would your presumptions NOT be true?
Some forms of programming syntax, although there are the fringe cases where an equation (or function in programming) is represented by a symbol in conjunction with a parentheses input.
For example:
y(x) = 2*x+3
5+y(1) = 10, as 1 is substituted in for x in the prior equation.
And in some languages a number can be used as a name of a variable or a function, so it can be anything really
Not in Maths it can’t
No, it can only be a Factorised Term, ab+ac=a(b+c). You also can’t call a function by any letter that you’ve used as a pronumeral
Wouldn’t we just assume function expressions are always “in parenthesis”? Then it’s just a substitution and no rules were changed.
No, because factorised Terms also are, ab+ac=a(b+c).
But factorised terms are multiplications, so they’re still following the same rules: a(b+c) = a*(b+c)
Example: 2(3+5)=16, and also 2*3+2*5=16
No, they’re Distribution done in the Brackets step, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), now solve (ab+ac)
Nope! a(b+c)=(ab+ac). 1/a(b+c)=1/(ab+ac), but 1/ax(b+c)=(b+c)/a.
(2x3+2x5) actually, or you’ll get the wrong answer when it follows a Division sign. See previous point
Nope, that’s wrong. See https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=10%2F2(2%2B3) for reference.
You think Maths textbooks are wrong?? 😂
See Maths textbooks for reference 😂
I prefer BM-DAS, no one’s out here doing exponents, and no one calls brackets “parentheses”…
The way I was taught growing up, brackets are [these]. Parenthesis are (these).
Yes, technically the latter are also brackets. But they can also be called parenthesis, whereas the former is exclusively a bracket. So we were taught to call them separate words to differentiate while doing equations.
They’re all brackets. Parentheses is actually the part inside the ().
That’s not even an equation, just basic arithmetic
Technically not algebra, right? Algebra is where you move things around and solve for variables, and that kind of thing. This is just arithmetic.
No, it actually is Algebra. The Distributive Law isn’t taught to students until they start on Algebra.
There’s no a(b+c) in Arithmetic.
I don’t think you’re right. The wiki page literally uses a similar equation as an example of “elementary arithmetic.” It also uses a similar one, but with variables, as an example in “elementary algebra.” That implies that yes, this is arithmetic, and the introduction of variables is what makes it algebra.
It doesn’t matter what course finally teaches it to you. That could be just out of convenience, not by definition part of that domain. It’s been ages since I took it, though I could swear I learned this in pre-algebra (meaning before algebra), or earlier. I could be wrong on this though. Again, it’s been a very long time.
You don’t think Maths textbooks are right??
is full of disinformation. Note that they literally never cite any Maths textbooks
And whichever Joe Blow My Next Door Neighbour wrote that is wrong
Algebra isn’t taught until high school
No, anything with a(b+c) is Algebra, taught in Year 7
and the rules of Algebra, which includes a(b+c)=(ab+ac). There is no such rule in Arithmetic.
It does if you’re going to argue over whether it’s Arithmetic or Algebra.
The Distributive Law is 100% part of Algebra. It’s one of the very first things taught (right after pronumerals and substitution).
I teach it. We teach it to Year 7, at the start of Algebra