🇳🇱
@mc the casio on the left is wrong, and most calculators, the vast majority, would disagree with it.
@mc note that the ambiguity only arrises with "division with a slash" which is the wording used even in the exceptions to the general rule such as the journal mentioned.
Splitting hairs (figuratively)
@mc
Interesting. The Wikipedia article's current wording seems very slightly ambiguous here:
"...in some of the academic literature, multiplication denoted by juxtaposition (also known as implied multiplication) is interpreted as having higher precedence than division, so that 1 ÷ 2n equals 1 ÷ (2n), not (1 ÷ 2)n. For example, the manuscript submission instructions for the Physical Review journals state that multiplication is of higher precedence than division with a slash,[22] and this is also the convention observed in prominent physics textbooks..."
It begins by talking about implied multiplication specifically, but then the example doesn't include the "implied" qualification. Perhaps those publications exclusively use implied multiplication anyway, making the implicit/explicit distinction irrelevant.
@freemo
Splitting hairs (figuratively)
Yea I picked up on that too, it is a bit ambiguous.
I can say from personal expiernce that 1) no one ive ever met has done math that uses in-line division. They always make it stacked (like you do when writing) so any change of ambiguity is removed 2) if it is written on a single line they would never (outside of maybe physics those guys are wacky) consider multiplication and division to have different precedence.
@mc yup, well aware of the wikipedia article. Been over it countless times with people on this debate.