3

When you write a mathematical expression like this:

$4:2(1+1)$,

does the fact that the multiplication operator is not explicitly written has any bearing on the precedence? What is the order of operations in this case?

Is it:

$4:4=1$ (order: parenthesized addition, implicit multiplication, division)

or

$2(1+1)=4$ (order division, parenthesized addition, implicit multiplication).

If the explicit operator has no effect, this would be $4\div2\cdot(1+1)$ and calculated from left to right (because of the no precedence between division and multiplication). Result woud then be $4$.

  • Is “:” intended to mean division? – MJD Aug 30 '21 at 11:40
  • This kind of question has been discussed, at length, elsewhere on this site. See, e.g., https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/33215/what-is-48-div293 and the questions it links to. – Gerry Myerson Jul 30 '24 at 13:17

6 Answers6

5

Implicit multiplication belongs to algebra, not arithmetic. I would not expect to see implicit multiplication in an expression like yours - where there are unevaluated operations involving literal numbers. This could clearly lead to confusion, as we might hope to simplify $4(2+2)$ to $4 4$, but this is indistinguishable from the number $44$.

Where implicit multiplication is appropriate, in algebraic expressions, between a number and a symbol, or between two symbols, neither $:$ not $\div$ should be used to express division. Rather division should be shown using a horizontal line. This means there is no confusion possible between

$$\frac{a}{b}\left(c+d\right)$$

and

$$\frac{a}{b(c+d)}$$

jwg
  • 2,846
  • Thanks, mate. You've finally corrected me on something I've been wrongly telling people for the better part of a year. I appreciate the correction, just not name-calling. I should get off of the social medias. :( – Jordan Jul 14 '22 at 16:22
  • There's no such thing as "implicit multiplication". Usually people are referring to Terms or The Distributive Law - which are 2 distinct rules - when they say that. "neither : not ÷ should be used to express division" - either can be used. "using a horizontal line" - but that indicates a fraction, which isn't the same thing as division. Terms are separated by operators (e.g. a division symbol) and joined by grouping symbols (e.g. a fraction bar). 1÷2 is 2 terms. ½ is one term. 1÷1÷2=½. 1÷½=2. Not the same number of terms, not the same answer. – donaldp Aug 03 '24 at 04:43
4

Let me answer by giving a stupid example: $$2a:2a$$ Just adding the implicit multiplication sign will lead to this result, by calculating from left to right: $$2*a:2*a=a*a=a²$$ To me this is ridiculous, I think it's quite clear that the answer should be 1, because I think writing factors together without multiplication sign "binds them" tighter together than explicit multiplication or division signs do. I read it like this: $$(2a):(2a)=1$$

So my answer to your question is: Omitting the multiplication sign shouldn't change the evaluation of mathematical expressions, but sometimes it might. However, this confusion is completely unnecessary. Mathematics is a language, and expressions like the one I wrote does not exist in themselves, they are a product of human communication, and writing the expression with a fraction line would have eliminated all ambiguity, as pointed out by jwg.

If one means 2a divided by 2 and multiplied by a, one shoud write $$\frac{2a}{2}*a$$ If one means 2a divided by 2a, one should write $$\frac{2a}{2a}$$ If you are tasked with solving an expression like the one you posted or the one I mentioned, from your teacher or whoever, you could critisize them for poor mathematical communication.

  • You can use \cdot to get a centered dot $3\cdot4$, and \times for a multiplication sign $3\times4$. – MJD Aug 30 '21 at 11:42
  • "your teacher or whoever, you could critisize them for poor mathematical communication" - or maybe you should ask a teacher about it in the first place. You can find it written the way it's been written here in any maths textbook. Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols. axb is 2 terms. ab is 1 term. 2a/2a=1. 2a/2xa=axa=a². 4/2(1+1)=4/(2+2)=4/4=1. – donaldp Aug 03 '24 at 04:49
0

The right way to do it, I think, would be as follows: $$ 4 \div 2 (1 + 1) = 4 \div 2 \times (2) = 4 \div 2 \times 2 = (4 \div 2) \times 2 = 2 \times 2 = 4. $$

However, one can also proceed as follows: $$ 4 \div 2(1+1) = (4 \div 2) \times (1+1) = 2 \times (1+1) = 2 \times 2 = 4. $$

Note that parentheses carry the topmost precedence.

Except for the grouping operators such as the parentheses, the multiplication --- whether expressed with or without the sign --- and division have equal precedence, followed by addition and subtraction, which also have the same precedence. However, operators (of the same precedence) are to be evaluated from left to right.

Hope this helps.

  • Both of those are wrong, because in both cases you have broken up the second term, thus flipping the (1+1) from the denominator into the numerator. The correct way is 4/2(1+1)=4/(2+2)=4/4=1 – donaldp Aug 03 '24 at 04:51
0

When you write a mathematical expression like this:

4:2(1+1),

does the fact that the multiplication operator is not explicitly written has any bearing on the precedence? no What is the order of operations in this case?

If the : means division, which i assume it does, then the 4 is divided by the expression 2(1+1). It is a fraction. Then you are free to divide the 4 in the numerator by the 2, then divide by the sum of 1+1, or multiply by 2 thru the denominator (and get 2+2), then add, and then divide, or add 1+1 first before the multiply thru by 2. In any case you get 2/2, or 4/4, =1.

  • You have arrived at the correct answer for what is written, however the multiplication sign DOES make a difference if it's written, because it then becomes 4:2x(1+1)=4:2x2=2x2=4, and that was the original question - does being written without a multiplication sign make a difference to the precedence, and the answer is yes, it does. It means the answer is 1 - because 2(1+1) is a single term, but 2x(1+1) is 2 terms- not 4. – donaldp Aug 03 '24 at 04:57
0

Technically the implied multiplication is really just hiding the real controversy here.

By foil, yes, of course the term outside the brackets must be able to be distributed inside of it, or all of Math breaks down.

The some people have nonsensically argued that the equation is better parsed as: $$\frac{4}{2}(1+1)$$

But you have to be aware that smart calculators might choose either interpretation and teachers might choose 1 of these randomly and consider it correct. Their are even some stories of math books that teach implied multiplication but the person who wrote the answer section did not use it. So it is indeterminate, nobody important enough has given a ruling on this and enough people have chosen both sides that their is no way of knowing the implied meaning.

Jonathon
  • 111
  • "teachers might choose 1 of these randomly and consider it correct" - there's nothing random about it. Textbooks teach both Terms and The Distributive Law. Disobeying either of those rules ends up with wrong answers. "nobody important enough has given a ruling on this" - you call Maths textbooks "nobody important enough"? Re the link you gave - did you notice how he never quotes Maths textbooks? – donaldp Aug 03 '24 at 05:02
0

There's a number of answers here which are kinda correct, but have missed using the correct terminology and reasons, and the correct term is, co-incidentally, :-) Term...

Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols. In terms of the "absent" multiply, that means it's now 1 term instead of 2. i.e. ab=(axb), not axb. ab is 1 term, axb is 2 terms.

If a=2 and b=3, then...

axb=2x3

ab=6

1/axb=1/2x3=3/2

1/ab=1/6

So yes, it makes a world of difference.

Note that in the mnemonics, "Multiplication" refers LITERALLY to multiplication symbols, nothing else. axb is multiplication, ab is a term. In fact it's a product, which is the RESULT of a multiplication. In other words, it's already been done. e.g. ab=6. This is how an awful lot of people get order of operations questions wrong - they think that ab is "multiplication", and thus break up the term, giving the wrong answer. e.g. doing 1/ab as though it's 1/axb, when it's 1/(axb).

Also, in the specific example you've given, The Distributive Law also applies. i.e. a(b+c)=(ab+ac). In contrast, ax(b+c) is 2 terms, not one, so 1/a(b+c)=1/(ab+ac), whereas 1/ax(b+c)=(b+c)/a, which is quite clearly not the same answer.

P.S. this is WHY it's NOT called "implicit multiplication" - it's not multiplication! No Maths textbook says "implicit multiplication" - they all talk about Terms/products. "implicit multiplication" is a "rule" made up by people who don't remember the real rules - Terms and The Distributive Law.

donaldp
  • 113
  • 1
  • 4