I’ve long since blocked HexBear , but will occasionally click the “show me anyway” button just to validate that decision. I’m somehow still surprised by the advanced stage brainrot every time.

a= “birds are dinos”

b= “dinos are reptiles”

c= “birds are reptiles”

Structure: If a then b, therefore c

a does not imply b without an additional statement (which we can assume from the rest would be “because birds are reptiles”)

You’ve basically just said birds are reptiles because birds are reptiles

I think they were pointing out the structural issue with your statement. They info you are attempting to convey is correct. Your ability to do so is questionable.

A wealthy man from Soth Africa has weird views on eugenics? I’m shocked!

None of this has a point. We’re talking over a shitpost rant about common use of math symbols. Even the conclusion boils down to it being a context dependent matter of preference. I’m just disagreeing that the original question as posed should be interpreted with weak juxtaposition.

My argument is specifically that using no separation shows intent for which way to interpret and should not default to weak juxtaposition.

Choosing not to use (6/2)(1+2) implies to me to use the only other interpretation.

There’s also the difference between 6/2(1+2) and 6/2*(1+2). I think the post has a point for the latter, but not the former.

Honestly, I do disagree that the question is ambiguous. The lack of parenthetical separation is itself a choice that informs order of operations. If the answer was meant to be 9, then the 6/2 would be isolated in parenthesis.