That’s some awful impressive goalpost shifting. Gold medal mental gymnastics winner.

And here you are, still unable to explain why prefix and postfix notation don’t have an operator precedence. I’m still waiting.

I already told you 3 times they obey the same rules

They literally don’t, and I defy you to show me a single source that tells you that prefix or postfix notation use PEDMAS. I’ll even take Quora answers.
Heck, I’ll even take a reputable source talking about prefix/postfix that doesnt bring up how order of operations isn’t required for those notations.

Nope. Doesn’t say that anywhere. Go ahead and screenshot the part which you think says that. I’ll wait

Right here:

Infix notation needs extra information to make the order of evaluation of the operators clear:

rules built into the language about operator precedence and associativity

Which you attempt to retort with

BTW this is completely wrong…

But then you go on to say something to the effect of “anyone who knows the rules can the extra information”. Which is both unsubstantiated given the long history of not having PEDMAS, but also kind of a nothingburger.

Doesn’t say that either. 🙄 Again, provide a screenshot of where you think it says that

It’s literally the whole thing. Did you notice how they never discuss the need for operator precedence, or use operator precedence?

Build for me a prefix or postfix equation that you think is changed by adding parentheses (eg overriding the natural order of operations), and then go ahead and find a prefix or postfix calculator and show me the results of removing those parentheses.
If you read the rules for those notations, you’ll see pretty clearly that operator precedence is purely positional, and has nothing to do with which operator it is.

Note that I always cite Maths textbooks

No, you’ve show a screenshot from a random PDF. What math textbook and what edition is it?

The fact you think that factorization has to do with order of operations is shocking.
Yes the multiplication is done first, but not because PEDMAS. The law is about converting between a sum of a common product and a product of sums. No matter how you write them, it will always be about those things, so the multiplication always happens first. It doesn’t depend on PEDMAS because without PEDMAS you’d simply write the equation differently and factorization would still work.
It’s crazy that you’re not able to distinguish between mathematical concepts and the notation we use to describe them.

But putting that aside, that’s not a proof of PEDMAS.
If PEDMAS is an actual law, then there will be a formal proof or theorem about it. There are proofs for 1+1, if PEDMAS is a law then there will be an actual proof specifically about it. Not just some law and then you claim it follows that PEDMAS is true, an actual proof or theorem, or an textbook snippet explain how it is an unprovable statement.

I already scare the baddies away 🥲

What is up with Pooh’s face?
Is this AI?

Left to right is a convention, yes, doing Multiplication and Division before Addition and Subtraction is a rule 🙄

A claim entirely unsupported by the textbook example you provided. Nowhere does it say that one is a convention but not the other, it only says that removing brackets changes the meaning in some situations, which is fully within the scope of a convention.

For the 3rd time it does have order of operations 🙄You just do them in some random order do you?

There you go again, just admitting you don’t know what postfix and prefix notations are.
If you’re ordering your operations based what the operator is, like PEDMAS, then what you’re doing isn’t prefix or postfix.

I’ll tell you what, here is a great free article from Colorado State university talking about prefix, postfix, and infix notations.
Note how it says the rules about operator precedence are for the notation which itself is a convention, as all notations are, and how prefix and postfix don’t need those rules

says person who doesn’t know the difference between conventions and rules, and thinks postfix notation doesn’t have rules 🙄

How embarrassing for you.
Here are some more materials:

• A post by Berkley university about popular ambiguous equations.
• A published paper from Berkley that has been cited, with much stronger language on the matter.
• Here is an article from the university of Melbourne
• Article from the university of utah
• A howstuffworks article on order of operations that explains it, doesn’t have the pedigree of a university, but still clearly explained
• Plus dozens of Quora answers, articles from online academies and learning centers, that I figured you’d just dismiss.

But to top it all off, if this was truely a law of mathematics, then show me a proof, theorem, or even a mathematical conjecture, about order of operations.

In your screenshot of a textbook, they refer to it as a convention twice.

And you still haven’t explained prefix or postfix notation not having order of operations.

Get rekd idiot

I don’t really think that is true, those big wood TVs mostly aren’t especially stylish, and neither are recorded players.
Although style is obviously subjective so I suppose our miles vary

Ah, RP, so
Bottol of wotta

Are you the
Buh’oh ah wa’ah
Or
Bah’ol ah wa’er
Or
Bo’el a wo’ah
Type of English?

“have”?
I think you mean 'ave, mate, innit?

Any size is fine if the other side doesn’t know they’re coming to a gun fight

Jastate?
Odd name

I don’t get it, and I feel like I’m probably not supposed to.
Kind of a shame. I guess I’ll just get led astray

Your argument you haven’t made is backed up by math textbooks you haven’t provided written for children.

What is it that you want addressed?

How can that specific order of operations be a law of mathematics if it only applies to infix notation, and not prefix or postfix notations? Laws of mathematics are universal across notations.

Show me a textbook that discusses other notations and also says that order of operations is a law of mathematics.
You don’t have it, and you also aren’t a maths teacher, or a teacher at all. Just because you say it a lot doesn’t make it true.

Dr pepper baby
It’s good and nice 🎵

You forgot

Dndbsisudhdhsishdsjsosjsej makeup

Man, this whole post has been embarrassing for you. Oof.

I can’t help but notice youve once again failed to address prefix and postfix notations.
And that you’ve not actually made any argument other than “nuh uh”
Not to mention the other threads you’ve been in. Yikes.

We can all tell you’re not a maths teacher.

To a “maths teacher”

Yeah sure
A “teacher” who doesn’t know that all lessons are simplifications that get corrected at a higher level, and confidentiality refers to children’s textbook as an infallible source of college level information.

A “teacher” incapable of differentiating between rules of a convention and the laws of mathematics.

A “teacher” incapable of looking up information on notations of their own specialization, and synthesizing it into coherent response.

Uh huh, sounds totally legit

They don’t, they apply to all notations

I love how confident you are about something you clearly have no knowledge of.
Adorable.

Well, you made a good effort. At least if we’re judging by word count.

You can’t be underestimated

Many of these rely on big words, or are actually pretty obviously insults even if you don’t understand.

The real gems are the ones that read like simple english compliments, unless you spend actual effort looking for the insult.