I stand corrected

No, you weren't. Most of their answers were wrong. You were right. See my reply. 4 is the only correct answer, and if you don't get 4 then you did something wrong, as they did repeatedly (kept adding brackets and thus changing the Associativity).

until the ambiguity is removed

There isn't any ambiguity.

all those answers are correct

No, only 1 answer is correct, and all the others are wrong.

Until the author gives me clarity then that sentence has multiple meanings. With math

Maths isn't English and doesn't have multiple meanings. It has rules. Obey the rules and you always get the right answer.

it doesn’t click for people that the equation is incomplete.

It isn't incomplete.

100% with you. “Left to right” as far as I can tell only exists to make otherwise “unsolvable” problems a kind of official solution

It's not a rule, it's a convention, and it exists so as to avoid making mistakes with signs, mistakes you made in almost every example you gave where you disobeyed left to right.

It’s so we don’t have to spam brackets everywhere

No it isn't. The order of operations rules were around for several centuries before we even started using Brackets in Maths.

((((((9+2)-1)+6)-4)+7)-3)+5

It was literally never written like that

we only need parentheses when we want to deviate from the norm

That has always been the case

The solution accepted anywhere but in the US school system range from “Bloody use parenthesis, then” over “Why is there more than one division in this formula why didn’t you re-arrange everything to be less confusing” to “50 Hertz, in base units, are 50s-1”.

No, the solution is learn the rules of Maths. You can find them in Maths textbooks, even in U.S. Maths textbooks.

so no actual mathematician, or other people using maths in earnest, use that kind of notation.

Yes we do, and it's what we teach students to do.

Addition first:
9-4=5

Nope. Addition first is 9+3-1=12-1=11. You did 9-(1+3), incorrectly adding brackets and changing the answer (thus a wrong answer)

Except it does matter

No it doesn't. You disobeying the rules and getting lots of wrong answers in your examples doesn't change that.

I left some examples for another post with multiplication and division

Which you did wrong.

I’ll give you some addition and subtraction to see order matter with those operations as well

And I'll show you it doesn't matter when you do it correctly

Subtraction first:
1 + (2 - 3) + 4
1 + (-1) + 4 = 4

Nope. Right answer for wrong reason - you only co-incidentally got the answer right. -3+1+2+4=-3+7=4

Right to left:
1 + (2 - (3 + 4))
1 + (2 - 7)
1 + (-5) = -4

Nope. 4-3+2+1=1+2+1=3+1=4

Edit: You can argue that, for example, the addition first could be (1 + 2) + (-3 + 4)

Or you could just do it correctly in the first place, always obeying Left Associativity and never adding Brackets

in my opinion that’s another ambiguous case

There aren't ANY ambiguous cases. In every case it's equal to 4. If you didn't get 4, then you made a mistake and got a wrong answer.

Oh, but of course the statement changes if you add parentheses

It sure does, but they don't seem to understand that.

Another common issue is thinking “parentheses go first”

There's no "think" - it's an absolute rule.

then beginning by solving the operation beside them

a(b) isn't an operation - it's a Product. a(b)=(axb) per The Distributive Law.

(mostly multiplication)

NOT Multiplication, a Product/Term.

The point being that what’s inside the parentheses goes first, not what’s beside them

Nope, it's the WHOLE Bracketed Term. a/bxc=ac/b, but a/b( c )=a/(bxc). Inside is only a "rule" in Elementary School, when there isn't ANYTHING next to them (students aren't taught this until High School, in Algebra), and it's not even really a rule then, it's just that there isn't anything ELSE involved in the Brackets step than what is inside (since they're never given anything on the outside).

÷ could be a minus sign

No it couldn't.

Division sign - Wikipedia

(en.wikipedia.org)

Did you check the reference? It says % can be used as a minus sign, not the obelus. Welcome to what happens when you're next-door neighbour Joe Blow can edit Wikipedia.

Yes, it is

No it isn't.

The division of a by b in the set of real numbers and the set of rational numbers (which are, de facto, the default sets used in most professions) is defined as the multiplication of a by the multiplicative inverse of b

No it isn't. The Quotient is defined as the number obtained when you divide the Dividend by the Divisor. Here it is straight out of Euler...

Alternative definitions are also based on a multiplication

Emphasis on "alternative", not actual.

I've seen many of his videos and haven't noticed any obvious errors. Could you please link to the specific video(s) that you are referencing in regards to errors he has made, especially those related to the distributive law and what you reference to as "1917," as well as any explanation as to what is incorrect/misleading/lying?

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

No it isn't. The Quotient is defined as the number obtained when you divide the Dividend by the Divisor. Here it is straight out of Euler...

I'm defining the division operation, not the quotient. Yes, the quotient is obtained by dividing... Now define dividing.

Emphasis on "alternative", not actual.

The actual is the one I gave. I did not give the alternative definitions. That's why I said they are also defined based on a multiplication, implying the non-alternative one (understand, the actual one) was the one I gave.

Feel free to send your entire Euler document rather than screenshotting the one part you thought makes you right.

Note, by the way, that Euler isn't the only mathematician who contributed to the modern definitions in algebra and arithmetics.

I’m defining the division operation, not the quotient

Yep, the quotient is the result of Division. It's right there in the definition in Euler. Dividend / Divisor = Quotient <= no reference to multiplication anywhere

Yes, the quotient is obtained by dividing… Now define dividing.

You not able to read the direct quote from Euler defining Division? Doesn't mention Multiplication at all.

The actual is the one I gave

No, you gave an alternative (and also you gave no citation for it anyway - just something you made up by the look of it). The actual definition is in Euler.

That’s why I said they are also defined based on a multiplication

Again, emphasis on "alternative", not actual.

implying the non-alternative one (understand, the actual one) was the one I gave

The one you gave bears no resemblance at all to what is in Euler, nor was given with a citation.

Feel free to send your entire Euler document rather than screenshotting the one part

The name of the PDF is in the top-left. Not too observant I see

you thought makes you right

That's the one and only actual definition of Division. Not sure what you think is in the rest of the book, but he doesn't spend the whole time talking about Division, but feel free to go ahead and download the whole thing and read it from cover to cover to be sure!

Note, by the way, that Euler isn’t the only mathematician who contributed to the modern definitions in algebra and arithmetics.

And none of the definitions you have given have come from a Mathematician. Saying "most professions", and the lack of a citation, was a dead giveaway!

But +, -, *, and / are all binary operators.

As far as I know, the only reason multiplication and division come first is that we've all agreed to it. But it can't be derived in a vacuum as that other dude contends it should be.

Can you explain how that is? Like with an example?

Math is exactly like English. It's a language. It's an abstraction to describe something. Ambiguity exists in math and in English. It impacts the validity of a statement. Hell the word statement is used in math and English for a reason.

But +, -, *, and / are all binary operators?

No, only multiply and divide are. 2+3 is really +2+3, but we don't write the first plus usually (on the other hand we do always write the minus if it starts with one).

As far as I know, the only reason multiplication and division come first is that we’ve all agreed to it.

No, they come first because you get wrong answers if you don't do them first. e.g. 2+3x4=14, not 20. All the rules of Maths exist to make sure you get correct answers. Multiplication is defined as repeated addition - 3x4=3+3+3+3 - hence wrong answers if you do the addition first (just changed the multiplicand, and hence the answer). Ditto for exponents, which are defined as repeated multiplication, a^2=(axa). Order of operations is the process of reducing everything down to adds and subtracts on a number line. 3^2=3x3=3+3+3

Can you explain how that is? Like with an example?

I'm not sure what you're asking about. Explain what with an example?

Math is exactly like English. It’s a language

No it isn't. It's a tool for calculating things, with syntax rules. We even have rules around how to say it when speaking.

It’s an abstraction to describe something

And that something is the Laws of the Universe. 1+1=2, F=ma, etc.

Hell the word statement is used in math and English for a reason

You won't find the word "statement" used in Maths textbooks. I'm guessing you're referring to Expressions.

Those rules are based on axioms which are used to create statements which are used within proofs. As far as I know statements are pretty common and are a foundational part of all math.

Defining math as a language though is also going to be pointless here. It's not really a yes or no thing. I'll say it is a language but sure it's arguable.

And again laws are created using statements. I have plenty of textbooks that contain "statements"

I’ve seen many of his videos and haven’t noticed any obvious errors.

He makes mistakes every time there's Brackets with a Coefficient. He always does a(b)=axb, instead of a(b)=(axb), hence wrong every time it follows a division.

what you reference to as “1917,”

No, he calls it that, though sometimes he also tries to claim it's an article (it isn't - it was a letter) - he never refers to Lennes by name. He also ignores what it actually says, and in fact disobeys it (the rule proposed by Lennes was to do all multiplication first, and yet he proceeds to do the division first, hence wrong answer, even though he just claimed that 1917 is the current rule).

Here's a thread about Lennes' 1917 letter, including a link to an archived copy of it.

Here's where Presh Talwalker lied about 1917

Here's a thread about The Distributive Law

Here's where Presh Talwalker disobeyed The Distributive Law (one of many times) (he does 2x3 instead of (2x3), hence gets the wrong answer). What he says is the "historical" rule in "some" textbooks, is still the rule and is used in all textbooks, he just never looked in any!

Note that, as far as I can tell, he doesn't even have any Maths qualifications. He keeps saying "I studied Maths at Harvard", and yet I can find no evidence whatsoever of what qualifications he has - I suspect he dropped out, hence why he keeps saying "I studied...". In one video he even claimed his answer was right because Google said so. I'm not kidding! He's a snake oil salesman, making money from spreading disinformation on Youtube - avoid at all cost. There are many freely-available Maths textbooks on the Internet Archive if you want to find proof of the truth (some of which have been quoted in the aforementioned thread).