kogasa

And that simple model, well-defined model didn’t properly account for juxtaposition, which is how different fields have ended up with two different ways of interpreting it, i.e. strong vs. weak juxtaposition.

No, that's just not what happened. "Strong juxtaposition," while well-defined, is a post-hoc rationalization. Meaning in particular that people who believe that this expression is best interpreted with "strong juxtaposition" don't really believe in "strong juxtaposition" as a rule. What they really believe is that communication is subtle and context dependent, and the traditional order of operations is not comprehensive enough to describe how people really communicate. And that's correct.

Considering your degree specialisation is in solving arithmetic problems

My degree specialization is in algebraic topology.

I don’t see the issue with them asking you to put your money where your mouth is and spit out a number if it’s so easy

The issue is that this question disregards and undermines my point and asks me to pick a side, arbitrarily, that (as I've already explained) I don't actually believe in.

Ironic that you tell me to check my reading comprehension right after you misquote me, but nonetheless that is the impression your responses have given off - and you haven’t done anything so far to dispel that impression.

I didn't misread, you're in denial.

Yes, and the question everyone is asking you is what is that unambiguous way? Which side of weak or strong juxtaposition do you come out on?

Hopefully by this point in the comment you understand that I don't believe the question makes sense.

The value judgement was actually more to do with your choice of example, and how you applied that example to this debate. It gave me the distinct impression that you view this debate as not worth having, as anybody who does juxtaposition differently from you is wrong out the gate - and again, your further responses only reinforce my impression of you.

Again, that's your fault-- you've clearly misinterpreted what I said. If I didn't think this conversation was worth having I wouldn't be responding to you.

"Which ruleset do you consider correct" presupposes, as the comment said, that there are 2 rulesets. There aren't. There's the standard, well known, and simplified model which is taught to kids, and there's the real world, where adults communicate by using context and shared understanding. Picking a side here makes no sense.

Calculators do not implement "what conventions are typically used in practice." Entering symbols one by one into a calculator is a fundamentally different process from writing them in a sentence. A basic traditional calculator will evaluate each step as you enter it, so e.g. writing 1 + 2 * 3 will print 1, then 3, then 6. It only gets one digit at a time, so it has no choice. But also, this lends itself to iterative calculation, which is inherently ordered. People using calculators get used to this order of operations specifically while using calculators, and now even some of the fancy ones that evaluate expressions use it. Others switched to the conventional order of operations.

Hi, expert here, calculators have nothing to do with it. There's an agreed upon "Order of Operations" that we teach to kids, and there's a mutual agreement that it's only approximately correct. Calculators have to pick an explicit parsing algorithm, humans don't have to and so they don't. I don't look to a dictionary to tell me what I mean when I speak to another human.

There aren't two different sets of rules. There's the simple model that's commonly understood and taught to kids, and there's the real world where you have context and the dynamics of a conversation and years of experience with communication. One is well defined, the other isn't.

Them asking me to solve the arithmetic problem is condescending, yes.

My response didn't say "anyone who disagrees with the convention is stupid." Here's condescension for you: please don't make your reading level my problem. What I said was, there's an unambiguous way to parse the expression according to the commonly understood order of operations, but it is atypical to pay that much attention to the order of operations in practice. If you think that's a value judgment, that's on you-- I was very clear in my example about capitalization, "strictly adhering to the conventional order of operations" is something reasonable people often just don't care about.

Ah yes, simply "answer the question with an incorrect premise instead of refuting the premise." When did you stop beating your wife?

That's not what they asked me. I have no problem answering questions that are asked in good faith.

Sorry your article wasn't as interesting as you hoped.

My opinion hasn't changed. The standard order of operations is as well defined as a notational convention can be. It's not necessarily followed strictly in practice, but it's easier to view such examples as normal deviation from the rules instead of an implicit disagreement about the rules themselves. For example, I know how to "properly" capitalize my sentences too, and I intentionally do it "wrong" all the time. To an outsider claiming my capitalization is incorrect, I don't say "I am using a different standard," I just say "Yes, I know, I don't care." This is simpler because it accepts the common knowledge of the "normal" rules and communicates a specific intent to deviate. The alternative is to try to invent a new set of ad hoc rules that justify my side, and explain why these rules are equally valid to the ones we both know and understand.

Notepad.exe is like the one thing I can always count on to open and edit text and save and that's it. Looking forward to it crashing, hanging, and generally sucking.