The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-learn

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: RE: [math-learn] - new question for discussion
Replies: 1   Last Post: Jan 30, 2001 7:54 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Mike Kenyon

Posts: 40
Registered: 12/6/04
RE: [math-learn] - new question for discussion
Posted: Jan 30, 2001 6:23 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

I'm not so sure that our order of operations really is "non-universal."
Certainly we've agreed on conventions, but I tend to think those conventions
are more necessary than arbitrary. My favorite example is an expression
like 2+6*5. If I see that as representing two one-dollar bills and six
five-dollar bills, then to determine how much money I have, I have no choice
but to multiply first and then add -- otherwise, I'd effectively be
converting my ones into fives. (Not that I would mind doing that, come to
think of it!) It's for this sort of reason that I think our order of
operations conventions are really the only ones we could have arrived at.

On the other hand, it may be possible that we're only willing to write
expressions like the above because we've adopted the conventions we have.
If we'd adopted others, maybe we just wouldn't write expressions like I have
above (or they'd be interpreted differently). So I don't necessarily
disagree with Ron either. Maybe someday E.T. will come down and we can ask
about the order of operations elsewhere! :-)

Mike Kenyon
Yakima Valley Community College
Grandview, Wash.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Ferguson [mailto://]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 10:21 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [math-learn] - new question for discussion
> We must realize that "order of operations" are an arbitrary
> convention: no
> such ordering is implicit in the field postulates, hence to obtain
> "universal?" agreement as to the value each expression should be
> well-punctuated with grouping symbols so that precedence of
> dyadic (binary)
> operations are non-ambiguous. Even monadic (unary)
> operations and functions
> could benefit from the clarity of precise punctuation. But
> few of us are
> willing to bear the burden of such notational overhead.
> Hence, we adopt an
> order of operation convention.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.