Yes. Go tell Wikipedia that I won’t open a textbook.

Open a textbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship

Tell them, not me.

Go tell Wikipedia about that, not me. It’s a community you can join. You very clearly feel very strongly about it. Talking to me about it isn’t going to change anything.

Wowww. Insisting that they’re good at math. I distinctly remember learning that RPN doesn’t need parentheses in college.

reverse Polish calculators do not need expressions to be parenthesized

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation

But, you know, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Someone probably put that there who hasn’t opened a math textbook.

They seem to believe that and on the 8th day God made the one true objective order of operations that all humans use and agree on.

It’s funny that you define “ignore” as “not doing what you tell someone to” because by that definition you’ve been ignoring me too. Go edit the article if you feel this strongly.

I haven’t ignored anything you said. I’m telling you that if you have a problem with those that you should contact them to fix them.

Go tell Berkeley I did that.

I did read everything you said and I do know how to do math. I hope you are able to enact the change you want to see in Wikipedia and the article. Good luck.

Tell them, not me.

I cannot stress this enough. If you have a problem with that, contact the author or Berkeley, not me.

Take it up with them if you have a problem with them.

Again, if you have a problem with Wikipedia, take it up with Wikipedia.

Take it up with Berkeley.

And then they’re gonna say “see? Look how many people are using this! I deserve a bonus.” When it’s a setting that’s just on by default.

If you believe the article is incorrect, submit your corrections to Wikipedia instead of telling me.

Take it up with Berkeley then.

Some pig!

https://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/order5.pdf

Please read this section of Wikipedia which talks about these topics better than I could. It shows that there is ambiguity in the order of operations and that for especially niche cases there is not a universally accepted order of operations when dealing with mixed division and multiplication. It addresses everything you’ve mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Mixed_division_and_multiplication

There is no universal convention for interpreting an expression containing both division denoted by ‘÷’ and multiplication denoted by ‘×’. Proposed conventions include assigning the operations equal precedence and evaluating them from left to right, or equivalently treating division as multiplication by the reciprocal and then evaluating in any order;[10] evaluating all multiplications first followed by divisions from left to right; or eschewing such expressions and instead always disambiguating them by explicit parentheses.[11]

Beyond primary education, the symbol ‘÷’ for division is seldom used, but is replaced by the use of algebraic fractions,[12] typically written vertically with the numerator stacked above the denominator – which makes grouping explicit and unambiguous – but sometimes written inline using the slash or solidus symbol ‘/’.[13]

Multiplication denoted by juxtaposition (also known as implied multiplication) creates a visual unit and is often given higher precedence than most other operations. In academic literature, when inline fractions are combined with implied multiplication without explicit parentheses, the multiplication is conventionally interpreted as having higher precedence than division, so that e.g. 1 / 2n is interpreted to mean 1 / (2 · n) rather than (1 / 2) · n.[2][10][14][15] For instance, the manuscript submission instructions for the Physical Review journals directly state that multiplication has precedence over division,[16] and this is also the convention observed in physics textbooks such as the Course of Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshitz[c] and mathematics textbooks such as Concrete Mathematics by Graham, Knuth, and Patashnik.[17] However, some authors recommend against expressions such as a / bc, preferring the explicit use of parenthesis a / (bc).[3]

More complicated cases are more ambiguous. For instance, the notation 1 / 2π(a + b) could plausibly mean either 1 / [2π · (a + b)] or [1 / (2π)] · (a + b).[18] Sometimes interpretation depends on context. The Physical Review submission instructions recommend against expressions of the form a / b / c; more explicit expressions (a / b) / c or a / (b / c) are unambiguous.[16]

6÷2(1+2) is interpreted as 6÷(2×(1+2)) by a fx-82MS (upper), and (6÷2)×(1+2) by a TI-83 Plus calculator (lower), respectively.

This ambiguity has been the subject of Internet memes such as “8 ÷ 2(2 + 2)”, for which there are two conflicting interpretations: 8 ÷ [2 · (2 + 2)] = 1 and (8 ÷ 2) · (2 + 2) = 16.[15][19] Mathematics education researcher Hung-Hsi Wu points out that “one never gets a computation of this type in real life”, and calls such contrived examples “a kind of Gotcha! parlor game designed to trap an unsuspecting person by phrasing it in terms of a set of unreasonably convoluted rules”.[12]