• Primarily0617@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Fortunately, the rules necessary to resolve the equation in this post are extremely elementary, so none of what you’re referencing has any bearing whatever.

    this would be like trying to tell a chemical engineer they didn’t know what they were doing based on your understanding of the atom as a ball of protons with electrons wooshing round it like they were moons

    very cute

    unfortunately, if you give the expression 1 / 2x to anybody who knows what they’re doing they’ll interpret it as 1 / (2x) because it would be absurd not to

    for reference, that’s why the calculator works like this. because it’s a tool designed primarily for people who actually know what they’re doing with numbers, so it works how they expect it to work

    • LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      And there you’ve proven exactly what I’ve been saying all along. 2x works the way it does because there’s a variable involved, and natural reading of that treats it as a single entity. There are no variables in the equation in the post, there are only definite numbers, parentheses, and simple mathematical operations. 8/2(2+2) is nothing more than 8/2×(2+2). There is nothing special about 2(…, this is not the equivalent of 2x.

      • Primarily0617@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        a natural reading of 2(2+2) treats it as the same

        you’re straight up just spouting contradictory nonsense now because you’ve realised your stance doesn’t make any sense, and i am very much here for it

        • LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          No, what I’m explaining to you is the facts behind what every calculator with any modicum of computing power will tell you, namely that 2(2+2) is identical to 2×(2+2).

            • LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah, kind of. The crappier calculator is the one generating the incorrect answer. Any calculator with any real level of oomph behind it can parse this correctly to get the correct answer, 16.

                • LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  The good calculator is the one using the processing power of the phone to handle the programming necessary to correctly interpret the order of operations and arrive at the correct answer, whereas the bad calculator - despite having no ads - is a cheap piece of trash unable to contain the necessary computational logic to arrive at the correct answer.