back and forth, forever.
(I used(LISP)one time((and it)permanently)changed the way I (operate(computers)))
The underlying truth of this joke is: Programming syntax is less confusing than mathematical syntax. There are genuinely ambiguous layouts of syntax in math (to a human reader that hasn’t internalized PEMDAS, anyways) whereas you get a compilation error if ANYTHING is ambiguous in programming. (yes, I am WELL aware of the frustrations of runtime errors)
Also: sometimes, a mathematician just has to invent some concept or syntax to convey something unconventional. The specific use of subscript/superscript, whatever ‘phi’ is being used for, etc. on whatever paper you’re reading doesn’t have to correlate to how other work uses the same concepts. It’s bad form, but sometimes its needed, and if useful enough is added to the general canon of what we call “math”. Meanwhile, you can encapsulate and obfuscate things in software, sure, but you can always get down to the bedrock of what the language supports; there’s no inventing anything new.
Yea, that’s it. Math syntax was created for humans, and programming syntax had to always remain deterministic for computers. It’s not an insult to either, just interesting how ambiguities show up often when humans are involved. I say ‘often’ for the general case: Math should be just as deterministic as programming, but it’s not in some situations.
Math should be just as deterministic as programming, but it’s not in some situations
Maths is 100% deterministic for order of operations. The issue is people not following all of the rules. Order of operations thread index
Math is. The syntax is arbitrary in some edge cases.
The syntax is arbitrary in some edge cases
Such as?
This is why every calculator should be a RPN calculator.
This is why every calculator should be a RPN calculator
No, this is why programmers should (re)learn the order of operations rules before writing a calculator.
I feel this in my bones
I, my head, shake.
- RPN user
Improved readability is always good
$((A+B))
My calculator says -2² = -4, so yeah…
My calculator says -2² = -4
That’s correct
I would never write -n². Either ‐(n²) or (-n)². Order of operations shouldn’t be some sort of gotcha to trick people into misinterpreting you, it’s the intuitive reading of a well constructed mathematical expression.
Either ‐(n²) or (-n)². Order of operations shouldn’t be some sort of gotcha to trick people into misinterpreting you
It isn’t. With ‐(n²), n² is already a single term, so the brackets aren’t needed.
Unfortunately some calculators, such as Google’s will ignore your brackets and put in their own anyway. You just gotta find a decent calculator in the first place.
(> (explicit) (implicit))
deleted by creator
I just used the calc on window… it cannot respect order of operation
Yeah, I’ve tried several times to get Microsoft to fix their calculators. I’ve given up trying now - eventually you have to stop banging your head against the wall.
