rasensprenger

Pemdas puts division and multiplication on the same level, so 34/22 is 12 not 3. Implicit multiplication is also multiplication. It's a question of convention, but by default, it's 16.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_exchange_point

Buuuh (<3)

It's weird because usually the people writing the expressions want to communicate clearly, and stuff like 1/2x is not immediately clear to everyone, so they write the 1/2 as a fraction.

The same expression on both sides of the division sign only reduce to one if they actually bind to the division sign, which is rarely an issue, but that is exactly the thing that is in question here. I think it's clear that 1 + 1/1 + 1 is 3, not 1, even though 1+1 = 1+1.

But as you said, of course, the evaluation order is just convention, you can just as well write everything in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation

your first line is correct, but while it looks like 1 (and it might be under different conventions), evaluating according to standard rules (left to right if not disambiguated by pemdas) yields

2(2+2)/2(2+2) = 2(4)/2(4) = 2*4/2*4 = 8/2*4 = 4*4 = 16

Using implicit multiplication in quotients is weird and really shouldn't happen, this would usually be written as 8/(2*(2+2)) or 8/2*(2+2) and both are much clearer

Your second argument only works if you treat 2(2+2) as a single "thing", which it looks like, but isn't, in this case

That would be extremely funny

Thank you, I'll check it out

2^2^2

Did you draw this? It's super cute!

YouTube as a platform isn't necessarily good, it's just the place where all the good content is

It just goes up all the way

vim-surround is an essential plugin for me