Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Reason for operator precedence
Replies: 15   Last Post: Mar 15, 2006 8:56 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
briggs@encompasserve.org

Posts: 404
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Reason for operator precedence
Posted: Mar 14, 2006 2:54 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <1142360037.330590.76450@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk writes:
>
> briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:

>> In article <1142344511.262841.322440@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk writes:
>> >
>> > bri...@encompasserve.org wrote:

>> >> In article <1142342196.542632.294210@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, matt271829-news@yahoo.co.uk writes:
>> >> >
>> >> > Tony wrote:

>> >> >> Hi all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hope this isn't a silly question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I was wondering what the reason is for having multiple levels of operator
>> >> >> precedence?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Phrased another way, why is it that we don't just evaluate everything from
>> >> >> left to right?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Having multiple levels of precedence obviously adds complexity, so I assume
>> >> >> there must be some payback. However, I don't see what it is.
>> >> >>

>> >> >
>> >> > As far as addition/subtraction vs multiplication/division is concerned,
>> >> > one reason is to ensure that the distributive property of
>> >> > multiplication works sensibly. For example, we want 3*(4 + 6) = 3*4 +
>> >> > 3*6 = 3*(6 + 4) = 3*6 + 3*4.

>> >>
>> >> Remember that what we're talking about here is merely a notational
>> >> convention. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the distributive
>> >> property of multiplication over addition.
>> >>
>> >> You can express the distributive law for multiplication over division
>> >> using parentheses:
>> >>
>> >> a*(b+c) = (a*b) + (b*c)

>> >
>> > Obviously you can. I meant to make it work without needing parentheses,
>> > but it seems that wasn't clear.

>>
>> Ok. Try doing it using infix notation and the operator precedence
>> convention of your choice. Remember your rule: no parentheses
>>
>> Left to right doesn't work.
>>
>> b+c*a = a*b... and we're stuck
>>
>> Right to left doesn't work.
>>
>> b+c*a = ...b*c and we're stuck.
>>
>> Multiplication has precedence over addition doesn't work.
>>
>> a*... and we're stuck
>>
>> Addition has precedence over multiplication doesn't work.
>>
>> a*b+c = a*b+... and we're stuck
>>
>> Accordingly, trying to point to this case as a motivation for some
>> particular choice of operator precedence seems ill conceived.
>>
>> According to your argument, it follows that we are all using either
>> Polish (prefix) or Reverse Polish (postfix) notation.

>
> Sorry, you've lost me. I was agreeing with you that even without any
> precedence convention we could still represent the distributive law as
> a*(b + c) = (a*b) + (a*c). However, the convention makes the
> parentheses redundant, because a*b + a*c is understood to mean (a*b) +
> (a*c).


Convention makes _SOME OF THE_ parentheses redundant. Your claim is
that _ALL OF THE_ parentheses are redundant.

Please respond to the challenge above. Try to phrase the distributive
law without using parentheses. If you have to resort to prefix or
postfix notation, my case is made. If you can't do it at all, your
case is lost.



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.