MMR February 7 2024 - Revoked Immunity

Parenthesis are tools to clarify, just as the Oxford Comma is a tool to clarify. There are times where we should be explicit but 99% of the time when we are not explicit, a common meaning can be discerned.

It should also be noted:

(a/b)(c/d) = (ac)/(bd)

Why the fuck would we go {term on top}/{term on bottom}{term on top}. That's not a simple way to communicate. Oh, we might do it in terms of:
({numerator of first concept}/{denominator of first concept})({numerator of second concept}/{denominator of second concept}), but each section is an explicitly separate section so it would actually make more sense to use parenthesis to separate them since they are distinct concepts. However, the simplest form of many expressions has many items in both numerator and denominator so it makes sense, in that simplest form, to be communicating it in the simplest way. For example:

PV = nRT - the gas equation
T = PV/nR - restructuring the gas equation to solve for temperature

That's the simplest form of communicating that information.  Any reasonable person can easily follow that logic of that separation and there's no reason why R would be considered part of the numerator.

In fact, if I wanted:
T2(P2) - T1(P1)

I'd probably write it as
T2 - T1 = (P2V/nR) - (P1V/nR)
= (P2-P1) * (V/nR)

That first line there, why am I putting parenthesis around those terms when BEDMAS says that they clearly would be handled first anyways? Well, because they're about explicitly defining the concept. I'm highlighting what I'm defining. It enables stronger communication. But putting it around the denominator? It provides no benefit to communication. It enables no greater understanding of what is being done.

Google is pretty certain that when I search for MTG, I must be looking for a certain card game....