Right, so what elliptoid suggests is that when you have
a / b * c
Then the order of operation depends on how c came into existence.
If it's a sum then you do multiplication first.
Otherwise it's the division first.
Once again – a dumb idea.
Dumb idea irrespective of context, supervening order, or practical considerations?
I'd venture that most -- perhaps unwittingly -- participating in one-or-more Math Orthodoxies share your view ... and perhaps generalize that ANY deviation of `standard practice' enshrined in sacred tradition constitutes a `dumb idea'.
The issue to which @elliptoid alludes -- In the CS domain, anyway-- is `
binding'.
When one wants or needs to suspend early-closure, early-certainty -- to which MBTI J types are prone -- typical of the fucktard languages created by
Nickle's Worth or his early-binding MBTI-J soul mates which entail values assigned to symbols/variables at
COMPILE time pursuant to having a value arise at
RUN TIME on a just-in-time basis
If one's desire is to compute as much of an overall expression as possible at compile time while leaving a degree of dynamism open for run time one IS concerned with pre-computing as many sub-expressions as possible to await plug-in values available later ... after compile time has closed with all the trepidation of CLOSURE which J types usually CRAVE ... until they've painted themselves in a corner.
As the Math Priesthood has Sucked Out Loud at integrating what their betters in the domains of Praxis have discovered and implemented as Proof of Concept I'll provide an example which dates back to circa 1962 at the dawn of CAD.
In
Propagation of Constraints the relationship between factors acted-upon by would-be `mathematical' operators is established, then when the latest value becomes available it is used to (re)generate the results of the parametric equation.
Order of operations allowing late-binding IS a dumb idea when one is dealing with hide-bound _NTJs who allow Tradition and Convention to constrain THEIR thinking ... whereas _NTPs are more likely to do an end-run around traditional, conventional OBSTACLES to implementing
Authorial Intent in various domains of Application of Logic.
For at least a half century _NTPs have been able to do an end-run around the conventional/traditional head-binding dumb-idea obstacles (mis)taught, maintained, (mis)used and ENSHRINED by _NTJ dumb asses
supposed/alleged to honor and value first principles over AUTHORITY as much as _NTPs: Lisp notation and APL notation to name just two.
Insomuch as PEMDAS encoding `is' or qualifies-as `logical' it `is' illogical in that is discounts authorial intent in favor of head-binding to asinine, mediocre conventions which J types can rote memorize sans understanding and exploiting firstER principles such as communitivity and associativity while allowing notation-induced superstition to THRIVE (EG the PEMDAS expression presented ALSO mis-ues
infix notation which tends to induce the superstition that ALL the operations either ARE or MUST be performed in a pairwise and/or sequential manner as if commutivity and associativity were not operative and available for exploitation).
That division is even allowed to STAND unchallenged is a travesty of logic and the
ad hoc artistic composition of symbolic expressions:
a / b * c == a * 1/b * c, where 1/b is the reciprocal of b as computable via Cray supercomputer in a flash, supplantive of CPU cycles wasted by long division algorithms.
When a, 1/b, and c can be moved around -- commuted -- freely within an expression as per multiplication-preclusive-of-division the dumb ass, dumb idea encoded in sacred PEMDAS notation in the form of sacred
pro forma `precedence' becomes MOOT!
As an INTP familiar with myriad notations for expressing semantic equivalents, the
composibility of symbolic expressions has precedence -- vis-a-vis first principles -- over `authority' to which _NTJ's slavishly acquiesce when they pander to PEMDAS notation ... with
Linguistic Relativity firmly in mind.
Those who honor logic over slavish acquiescence to Sacred Notation eschew PEMDAS and take their mathematical notions off for implementation via Better Options which allow the practical application of computers via programming languages, math apps and such.
Most of us are accessing the `content' of this thread via web browsers capable of javaScript, but how many have re-expressed the semantic of "
6÷2(1+2)" via a javascript url?
How LOGICAL seem we -- all of us -- to so fixate on the PEMDAS expression of the semantic that it never even crosses our minds to re-express it in a copy-then-paste form which those challenged by this silliness can paste into the address bar of the same web browser used to read this thread?!
I'll start us off for those who'd like a proof of concept as inspiration to edit and mutate the expression provided:
Dumb idea! ... mumble grumble.
Using a web browser to access `content' and distribute malware BUT NOT re-express the semantics of a symbolic expression MAL-expressed via PEMDAS in a machine readable, machine-executable form.
How effin `logical' is this for NT/(ir)rationals?
