• @weastie
      link
      719 days ago

      Nope, you can’t assume the - is included in the square if there’s no parenthesis around it. The answer is -9. Think of it like “0-3²” which is more obviously -9.

      • flamingos-cantOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        19 days ago

        Nope, you can’t assume the - is included in the square if there’s no parenthesis around it. The answer is -9.

        Surely that would mean the answer’s ambiguous, no? The lack of brackets means we can’t know definitively if - is included or not. But separately, I’d argue that -3 represents negative three, not subtract three, and negative three is it’s own distinct number from positive three.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          10
          edit-2
          19 days ago

          Perhaps it’s not the most clear, but that absolutely is the standard convention for how to treat exponents, because it results in much simpler shorthand for writing things like this:

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

          Example on that page:

          -x-(1/2)x^2 -(1/3)x^3 -(1/4)x^4 …

          Using your definition you’d have to put a bunch of parenthesis: -x-(1/2)(x^2 )-(1/3)(x^3 )-(1/4)(x^4 )…

          And believe me physicists would hate you if you made them do this because they’d have to do it constantly.

          • flamingos-cantOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            319 days ago

            It’s been a hot minute since I’ve had to do any serious maths, but that does roughly line up with what I remember about BODMAS. It’s just intuitively, there’s a difference between - as an infix operator (10 - 5) and - as a prefix (-3). If you where to solve x2 where x = -3, I don’t think you’d say it’s -9.