That’s an interesting question, and I’m gonna go learn the answer.
duckduckgo powers activate!
So yes, they do. It generally goes NOT, AND, OR. And if you’re doing algebra in binary and you’ve got boolean operators in there (you can AND two numbers the same way you can ADD two numbers in binary) PEMDAS becomes PEMDASNAO.
“(!Trick) && Treat” is probably the binding they meant
Or to simplify, Treat NOT Trick?
Yes, but I saw changing the order of them as non-compliant with the meme. I could have added a parenthesis but that also felt too technical.
Is there a standard order of operations for boolean logic, such as PEMDAS is for arithmetic?
That’s an interesting question, and I’m gonna go learn the answer.
duckduckgo powers activate!
So yes, they do. It generally goes NOT, AND, OR. And if you’re doing algebra in binary and you’ve got boolean operators in there (you can AND two numbers the same way you can ADD two numbers in binary) PEMDAS becomes PEMDASNAO.
Nice, so my gut feeling about not needing the parenthesis above was right.
I store-brand googled it, so I feel I’m not an authority to say one way or another!
It’s a reasonable convention that matches the common DNF (disjunctive normal form) of propositional logic, can confirm it’s the right read.
I’d still probably use parentheses for the ∧ (and/conjunction), though I’d never bother with it for ¬ (negation)
That’s language specific. In math it’s mostly just a parenthesis