this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
1324 points (98.9% liked)

Science Memes

9984 readers
2044 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Sister Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1324
))<>(( (mander.xyz)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
115 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

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)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Internalized PEMDAS without knowing it's literally the same thing as BODMAS is exactly the problem!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

what in the name of fuck is BODMAS

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Same as PEMDAS, except:

Parentheses -> Bracket

Exponent -> Order

Multiplication <-> Division

BODMAS

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I learned it as "BEDMAS"

Brackets

Exponents

(You can guess the rest)

But when I learned BEDMAS, my teacher directed us to do implied multiplication before other multiplication/division. Which, as far as I'm aware, is mathematically correct according to the proper order of operations (instead of whatever acronym summary you learned).

Before I get "umm. Acktually"d .... I know that's not the full picture of the order of operations as it should be in mathematics. But for the limited scope I learned of algebra from highschool, AFAIK, this is correct to the point that I have understanding of. I'm not a mathematician, and I work with computers all day long and they do the math for me when I need to do any of it. So higher understanding in my case is not helpful.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago

AFAIK, this is correct to the point that I have understanding of. I’m not a mathematician

I'm a Maths teacher/tutor. The actual rules are Terms and The Distributive Law. There is no such thing as "implicit multiplication" (which is usually people lumping the 2 separate rules together as one and ending up with wrong answers).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

order? how does that make sense? brackets alright ig

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Order is often used to describe exponents when talking about functions and other mathematical properties. In a lot of cases, it's also equivalent to a degree. For example, a function y = x² - 9 is a second-order/degree polynomial.

Alternatively, one could find a second-order rate of a reaction, which means the rate of reaction is proportional to the square of a solution's concentration.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Order of magnitude? Thinking out loud.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You have the right idea, and you are right in some regards. Generally the order of magnitude is an order of 10. That is, 1350 could be represented as 1.350×10³, so the order of magnitude is the third order of 10, which is 10³ (i.e. some value x×1000).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Order of magnitude?

It's actually short for "to the order of", as in 2 squared is 2 to the order of 2. i.e. same thing as Exponent or Index.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

order?

It's actually short for "to the order of", as in 2 squared is 2 to the order of 2. i.e. same thing as Exponent or Index.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I mean ... yea. The exact problem is math is not taught correctly. Order of operations make total logical sense for what the operations are doing.

The problem only arises when people don't come to all of the appropriate conclusions on their own.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

The exact problem is math is not taught correctly

Every single Maths textbook I've seen teaches it correctly. The issue is people not remembering what they were taught (and then programming a calculator without checking it first). Calculators

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So better do higher math in Python? I agree.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Python isn't the only programming language.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

But a quite common pl in science.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Counterpoint: C function pointers (or just C in general)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Math is. The syntax is arbitrary in some edge cases.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

The syntax is arbitrary in some edge cases

Such as?