tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433841880619171855.post4785043092345070527..comments2024-10-11T01:03:15.044+01:00Comments on Pat'sBlog: The Agony and the Obelus, or Much Ado about NotationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433841880619171855.post-83434825174785679192024-05-28T10:56:37.582+01:002024-05-28T10:56:37.582+01:00The issue isn't with the obelus, but with not ...The issue isn't with the obelus, but with not correctly parsing Terms. Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols. So in the example i÷rt vs. i÷rxt, in the former rt is a single term entirely in the denominator, whereas in the latter r and t have been split into 2 separate terms, which has the effect of taking the t out of the denominator and flipping it into the numerator. Since rt is a single Term, the only way you can add a multiplication sign to it is if you also put it in brackets, to keep it as 1 term. i.e. i÷(rxt).<br /><br />And yes, more than 100 years ago it was the case that everything following the obelus was in the denominator, but that changed, not sure when, but certainly by Lennes' time (1917) such that only the first term following the obelus was in the denominator, such that you could then have multiple divisions within the same line (instead of only one, which was the limitation with the previous usage) - this is the same usage we have today.<br /><br />I have a whole thread about the common order of operations mistakes at https://dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110897908266416158Smartman Appshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05654402875586198882noreply@blogger.com