Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Way2Foxy t1_iybxmkz wrote

Reply to comment by nemplsman in ELI5 why we first multiply, then add by TheManNamedPeterPan

Again, you can have a system that works perfectly well with multiplication prior to addition. There is no "inherent rule in nature" as OP phrased it guiding this.

2

nemplsman t1_iyby6xr wrote

There seems to be disagreement on this, and not just by me (see my sources).

1

Way2Foxy t1_iyc1lfu wrote

I don't think we disagree that doing multiplication prior to addition makes sense intuitively.

My point is that there's nothing forcing us to do it that way, and we could have a well defined system where we add and subtract first. If you disagree with that, then fair enough.

1

Kalirren t1_iycbj65 wrote

No, there -is- something forcing us to do it this way: * distributes over + but + doesn't distribute over *. So if you want to write the distributive property a*(b+c) = a*b+a*c you don't have to use ANY parentheses if you do * before +. And there's no reason why you would try to do it the other way because a+(b*c) != (a+b) * (a+c).

1