• Kogasa@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 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 @sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 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@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 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 @sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 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.