No, that’s just not what happened. “Strong juxtaposition,” while well-defined, is a post-hoc rationalization. Meaning in particular that people who believe that this expression is best interpreted with “strong juxtaposition” don’t really believe in “strong juxtaposition” as a rule. What they really believe is that communication is subtle and context dependent, and the traditional order of operations is not comprehensive enough to describe how people really communicate. And that’s correct.

I think you’re putting the cart before the horse here - there is definitely a communication issue around juxtaposition, but you’re acting as though strong juxtaposition is some kind of social commentary on the standard order of operations rather than the reality that it is an interpretation that arose due to ambiguity, just as weak juxtaposition did.

If it were people just trying to make a point, then why would it be so widely used and most scientific calculators are designed to use it, or allow its use. This debate exists because so many people ascribe to one or the other without thinking.

My degree specialization is in algebraic topology.

One - that does sound kind of cool

Two - You still have a mathematics degree do you not? You said this was an easy “unambiguous” problem to solve, so I don’t see how you’re prohibited from solving it…

The issue is that this question disregards and undermines my point and asks me to pick a side, arbitrarily, that (as I’ve already explained) I don’t actually believe in.

God saying stuff like that, you sound just like an enlightened centrist…

Anyways, even if you don’t want to comment on the strong vs. weak juxtaposition debate, unless you simply intend on never solving any equation with implicit multiplication by juxtaposition ever again, then you must have a way of interpreting it.

That is what you’re being asked to disclose, since you seem to be very certain that there is a correct way of resolving this. You’ve brought the question upon yourself.

If you don’t want to take a side, simply saying the rules are ambiguous and technically both positions are correct depending on what field you’re in is also a valid position…

But denying the problem all together is not productive.

I didn’t misread, you’re in denial.

In the first place I don’t think you’ve proven me wrong. As far as I can tell your comments still boil down to that you think the whole debate is wrong, and that engaging in the debate is dumb.

But I can say for certain that you either misread or deliberately misconstrued at least part of my reply, because when responding to me you removed the “you follow” from it, which changes the interpretation.

If you think that wasn’t what I said, feel free to go back and look.

Hopefully by this point in the comment you understand that I don’t believe the question makes sense.

I understand you don’t believe the question makes sense, you’ve said that enough times…

But I’ll just refer you to my earlier comment - unless you intend on never solving any equation involving implicit multiplication ever again, then you must ascribe to one way or the other of resolving it.

Again, that’s your fault-- you’ve clearly misinterpreted what I said.

Then tell me how I’ve misinterpreted what you said, because I stick by what I said as far as your example goes.

Your choice of example is not only a much more clear cut issue, being that most kids are taught by primary school (or the US equivalent) how and where to capitalise their letters, and to me it also demonstrates that you’ve not understood that the whole reason this debate is a thing is directly because there’s no “wrong way” of doing this.

If I didn’t think this conversation was worth having I wouldn’t be responding to you.

I understand you see this conversation with me as worth having, but I suspect this is more to do with wanting to resolve this conversation in your favour than it is to do with the underlying debate.