Definition talk:Binding Priority

It may be a good idea to transclude these pages with separate entries for (abstract) algebra and logic. --Lord_Farin 21:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines a while back. We also ought to include conventional arithmetic and the "bedmas" / "bodmas" / "bomdas" mnemonic and its variants which unaccountably get argued about in emotive language on the homework forums. --prime mover 22:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is relying on $\implies$ binding more tightly than $\iff$ just inviting confusion? --Dfeuer (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's the way it is. If we wanted to we could declare the existing convention as held by logicians and boolean algebra specialists to be inadequate and invent our own binding priorities based on what we know is obviously sensible from having read a few pages on the web. But what we prefer to do to on this site is to prefer to follow accepted conventions.

In order to assuage confusionists, I have made an attempt in the propositional logic proof pages (of which I am one of few contributors) to impose redundant parentheses in appropriate places, such that a lack of facility with these conventional binding priorities does not become a problem. --prime mover (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

In almost all cases, $\iff$ is the principal operator, so it is natural to give it lowest binding priority. But we don't strive for minimal parentheses, so some extra pairs of these may be added sometimes. — Lord_Farin (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)