How is this type of expression supposed to be evaluated? Is it the negative number 3 to the 2nd power, or the negative of 3 to the 2nd power?
9 or -9?
PEMDAS doesn't involve this as in this expression '-' is a unary operator, not subtraction operator
Other urls found in this thread:
duckduckgo.com
twitter.com
(-3)^2=(-3)(-3)=9
-3^2=-(3)(3)=-9
I am aware there are two ways to interpret this, hence why I'm asking the question. I asked which way is the correct way.
the one you wrote is the second one i wrote, so -9
It's 9 how do you not know this? If it were -9 then the square root of -9 would be -3 and we wouldn't have imaginary numbers
it's -9. Any calculator you ever put this on will tell you that because PEMDAS does tell you how to do this. Any negative can be thought of as the number multiplied by -1, so what you have would be (-1)3^2.
there is only 1 way to interpret it. Take a math class or read a book.
Its -9 because of BODMAS.
3^2 takes priority, that's 9, then its -1*9 = -9.
This is how you get inverted parabolas, through F(x) = -(x)^2
If you want 9 then the negative has to be included with the brackets.
nigger you didn't even read the post you replied to.
-3^2 = -(3^2) = -9
To get 9 you would have to write:
(-3)^2 = (-3)^2 = 9
To better understand, think of any negative number as a positive number times -1. So:
-3^2 = -1*3^2 = -9 by exponent first then multiplication
(-3)^2 = (-1*3)^2 = 9 by parentheses first then exponent
kys
its -9 op
By convention, it is interpreted as -3*-3
Brainlet detected
Holy shit the amount of brainlets in here trying to show off how to evaluate squared numbers, OP asks what convention is in place not how to compute either (-1)*3^2 or (-3)^2
It's honestly a shitty way to write it either way, but that is -1 * 3^2
Showing how to compute shows the convention. Explaining that negative numbers can be read as "-1*number" is helpful for remembering the convention.
According to DUMBAS it's 9
That's not the convention. Open any Calc book and you'll see polynomials with -y^2 in them. You can verify via solutions in the back of the book that it is meant to be (-y)^2
You're an idiot.