Scott Hill schrieb in Nachricht <3a8167d3@news.povray.org>...

>    (1+(2*(3-4))) = -1
>    (1+((2*3)-4)) = 3
>    ((1+(2*3))-4) = 3
>    ((1+2)*(3-4)) = -3
>    ((1+2)*3)-4) = 5
>
>    These're all _mathematically_ correct statements, yet we only except
one
>to be the correct evaluation of '1+2*3-4'. This is not, as I've already
>said, because any of the others are wrong, but merely because the statement
>is ambiguous and we therefore need some way to de-ambiguate (choose)
between
>the possible interpretations.


They are not mathematically correct, because an improtant part of the
mathematical system are the precedence rules. They are in no way more
arbitrary than any other mathematical rule, 'cause mathematics is no science
but just a set of rules which have at first nothing to do with any real
thing in the world (although they prove to be of much help to understand
some things in real world). If you just cancel one of the rules you can as
easily give up the whole system - or at least you have to say what you are
doing. The mathematical system in whole is not ambiguos at all - cause there
are rules to tell you how everything interacts which each other.

>P.S. When will p.o-t be back ?
>

Well, it is back for more than a week now.


Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message