Why does PEMDAS do multiplication and division before addition and subtraction? « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 ▼ Don Shepherd Unregistered Posts: 1,392 Threads: 142 Joined: Jun 2007 07-30-2013, 12:21 AM One of the responses to the rather large thread on PEMDAS got me thinking about this. I teach middle school math, and we always teach order of operations to 6th graders. I have always explained that PEMDAS is just the set of rules for evaluating mathematical expressions; no student has ever asked me "why are these rules the way they are?" Is it just arbitrary that multiplication and division come before addition and subtraction in PEMDAS, or is there a reason? In algebra, when we get to 2-step equations (3X + 12 = 24), I have always suggested undoing addition and subtraction first, then undoing multiplication and division. But PEMDAS teaches "doing" multiplication and division first. No wonder many kids get confused. When you evaluate an expression, you "do" PEMDAS (mult and div first), but when you solve an equation, you "undo" (add and sub first). Is there a logical way to explain this to students? ▼ htom trites jr Unregistered Posts: 66 Threads: 2 Joined: Aug 2007 07-30-2013, 01:06 AM Evaluating an expression means you have to reduce it to lowest terms. You do this by taking apart the most complicated, highest, parts first (driving into the parenthesis and other groupings and evaluating them first, bringing back a number to combine with other numbers); then the middle parts (exponents being repeated multiplication, then multiplication being repeated addition and division repeated subtraction) are dismantled, and finally the parts you've found are summed. It's like that tower of disks on the post puzzle. Add and subtract are on the bottom, multiply and divide on that, exponentiation on that, and parenthesis on the top. You can't take off the bottom disk until you have taken off the others. Thomas Klemm Unregistered Posts: 735 Threads: 34 Joined: May 2007 07-30-2013, 02:06 AM We use polynomials a lot. Without EMDAS we'd have to write: p(x) = (a(x3))+(b(x2))+(cx)+d. With PASMDE we'd still need to write the same expression. Only PEMDAS allows us to get rid of the parentheses and write: p(x) = ax3+bx2+cx+d. In addition to that the distributive law of multiplication would look weird: a*b+c = (a*b)+(a*c). Even more so with implied multiplication: ab+c = (ab)+(ac). Maybe I didn't understand you correctly but IMHO PEMDAS has nothing to do with the order of solving this equation. Division first, then subtraction: ```3X + 12 = 24 X + 4 = 8 X = 4 ``` Subtraction first, then division: ```3X + 12 = 24 3X = 12 X = 4 ``` Kind regards Thomas ▼ Harald Unregistered Posts: 455 Threads: 39 Joined: Jan 2011 07-30-2013, 07:15 AM [quote] Even more so with implied multiplication: ab+c = (ab)+(ac). [/pre] You confused me there. I think you would rather have implied addition if addition had precedence over multiplication:a * bc = (a*b)+(a*c). ▼ Thomas Klemm Unregistered Posts: 735 Threads: 34 Joined: May 2007 07-30-2013, 09:52 AM Wouldn't that rather be a*bc = (a*b)(a*c)? ▼ Harald Unregistered Posts: 455 Threads: 39 Joined: Jan 2011 07-30-2013, 11:20 AM That is true ;) Pier Aiello Unregistered Posts: 120 Threads: 14 Joined: May 2013 07-31-2013, 02:46 AM Guys! This forum is serious, wake up pls! a*bc = ab*c while (a*b)(a*c)=a^2*bc ▼ deleted Unregistered Posts: 291 Threads: 63 Joined: Jan 1970 07-31-2013, 07:23 AM This Message was deleted. This empty message preserves the threading when a post with followup(s) is deleted. If all followups have been removed, the original poster may delete this post again to make this placeholder disappear. ▼ Pier Aiello Unregistered Posts: 120 Threads: 14 Joined: May 2013 08-03-2013, 03:47 AM xD No, obviously the formatting options here are not user friendly. I meant: a2bc = a2*b*c Thomas Klemm Unregistered Posts: 735 Threads: 34 Joined: May 2007 08-03-2013, 05:32 AM Distributive law of multiplication: a*(b + c) = (a*b) + (a*c) With PEMDAS: a*(b + c) = a*b + a*c With PEMDAS and implied multiplication: a(b + c) = ab + ac With PASMDE: a*b + c = (a*b) + (a*c) With PASMDE and implied multiplication: ab + c = (ab) + (ac) With PASMDE and implied addition: a*bc = (a*b)(a*c) HTH Thomas David Persinger (US) Unregistered Posts: 31 Threads: 7 Joined: Sep 2011 07-30-2013, 07:48 AM I just came across this on youtube. Interesting. www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9h1oqv21Vs&feature=youtube_gdata Kimberly Thompson Unregistered Posts: 97 Threads: 1 Joined: Jun 2013 07-30-2013, 08:40 AM Don Interesting read on the Math Forum at this url... http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.order.operations.html The order of operations in which one is to interpret a mathematical expression such as "2+3 * 5" is a convention. This means that a long time ago, people just decided on an order in which operations should be performed. It has nothing to do with magic or logic. Some people decided to adopt a way, and it has stuck ever since. It just makes communication a lot easier. Another way of saying this is that rather than being inherent in the structure of mathematics, the concept of "order of operations" is a matter of mathematical notation. Order of operations refers to which operations should be performed in what order, but it's just convention. The notation tells you which operations to do first, not something about the underlying mathematics. ..continued at this url... http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57289.html The PEMDAS convention currently taught in schools, ... tells us ... as long as we're working with people who also follow that convention, we can leave the grouping symbols out. That doesn't seem like such a big benefit, but if you're writing hundreds or thousands of expressions each day, then those little savings can add up. This particular convention is optimized to make it possible to write polynomials without grouping symbols. SlideRule ▼ robert rozee Unregistered Posts: 170 Threads: 7 Joined: Apr 2009 07-31-2013, 10:59 AM this is the clearest of the explanations, and i'd hope would be the end of the matter. but what of the millions (or billions?) of pocket calculators made over the years, telling all who will listen that 1+2*3=9? yes, this is a loaded question; 1+2*3=9 because in the early years of the calculator, it was (from an engineering perspective) much easier to leave out operator precedence. yet long after the engineering issues were banished, manufacturers continued to build calculators that get it wrong. certainly for at least 30 years, there has been no excuse for 1+2*3 to equal anything other than 7. so why do we still manufacturer and distribute to the mass population calculators that don't follow what we so desperately attempt to teach in schools?

 Possibly Related Threads… Thread Author Replies Views Last Post HP Prime - Imlicit multiplication bluesun08 3 1,517 11-12-2013, 10:57 AM Last Post: Han HP Prime polynomial long division bluesun08 13 3,615 10-30-2013, 03:29 AM Last Post: parisse HP Prime : inconsistency with implicit multiplication in CAS Olivier Lecluse 6 2,292 10-27-2013, 03:30 AM Last Post: parisse PEMDAS Les Koller 183 43,381 08-02-2013, 01:01 PM Last Post: Thomas Klemm Understanding HP-16C integer division Jimi 18 5,072 10-16-2012, 09:13 PM Last Post: Eddie W. Shore New addition to my collection: 200 LX wildpig 20 5,967 08-31-2012, 06:39 AM Last Post: Keith Midson HP-15C LE (Limted Edition) Bug Reports Addition Dirk E. 0 902 08-02-2012, 05:49 PM Last Post: Dirk E. A great addition to the museum & DVD Matt Agajanian 0 887 03-11-2012, 06:40 PM Last Post: Matt Agajanian Corvallis Division - DIV.39 Joerg Woerner 3 1,502 09-13-2010, 04:15 PM Last Post: Martin Pinckney Loops of Addition benchmark for the 41CL Monte Dalrymple 8 2,012 08-19-2010, 09:48 PM Last Post: Wlodek Mier-Jedrzejowicz

Forum Jump: