It’s not ambiguous, it’s just that correctly parsing the expression requires more precise application of the order of operations than is typical. It’s unclear, sure. Implicit multiplication having higher precedence is intuitive, sure, but not part of the standard as-written order of operations.

I’d really like to know if and how your view on that matter would change once you read the full post. I know it’s very long and a lot of people won’t read it because they “already know” the answer but I’m pretty sure it would shift your perception at least a bit if you find the time to read it.

My opinion hasn’t changed. The standard order of operations is as well defined as a notational convention can be. It’s not necessarily followed strictly in practice, but it’s easier to view such examples as normal deviation from the rules instead of an implicit disagreement about the rules themselves. For example, I know how to “properly” capitalize my sentences too, and I intentionally do it “wrong” all the time. To an outsider claiming my capitalization is incorrect, I don’t say “I am using a different standard,” I just say “Yes, I know, I don’t care.” This is simpler because it accepts the common knowledge of the “normal” rules and communicates a specific intent to deviate. The alternative is to try to invent a new set of ad hoc rules that justify my side, and explain why these rules are equally valid to the ones we both know and understand.

The standard order of operations is as well defined as a notational convention can be.

If it was so well defined, then how did two different sets of rules regarding juxtaposition even come to be?
A well-defined order of operations shouldn't have a hole that big.

Also, @wischi asking you to give the answer as defined by your convention isn't condescending, they're asking you to put your money where your mouth is...

Your response certainly felt condescending though, especially since your "explanation" was essentially that anyone who disagrees with the convention you follow is wrong and should feel stupid, and that you needn't even consider it.

There aren’t two different sets of rules. There’s the simple model that’s commonly understood and taught to kids, and there’s the real world where you have context and the dynamics of a conversation and years of experience with communication. One is well defined, the other isn’t.

Them asking me to solve the arithmetic problem is condescending, yes.

My response didn’t say “anyone who disagrees with the convention is stupid.” Here’s condescension for you: please don’t make your reading level my problem. What I said was, there’s an unambiguous way to parse the expression according to the commonly understood order of operations, but it is atypical to pay that much attention to the order of operations in practice. If you think that’s a value judgment, that’s on you-- I was very clear in my example about capitalization, “strictly adhering to the conventional order of operations” is something reasonable people often just don’t care about.

There aren’t two different sets of rules. There’s the simple model that’s commonly understood and taught to kids, and there’s the real world where you have context and the dynamics of a conversation and years of experience with communication. One is well defined, the other isn’t.

And that simple model, well-defined model didn't properly account for juxtaposition, which is how different fields have ended up with two different ways of interpreting it, i.e. strong vs. weak juxtaposition.

In the real world you simply wouldn't write any equation out in such a way as to allow misinterpretation like this, but that's ignoring the elephant in the room...

Which is that the reason viral problems like this still come about and why @wischi went through the effort of writing a rather detailed blog on this is because the order of operations most people are taught doesn't cover juxtaposition.

Them asking me to solve the arithmetic problem is condescending, yes.

Considering your degree specialisation is in solving arithmetic problems, I don't see the issue with them asking you to put your money where your mouth is and spit out a number if it's so easy.

My response didn’t say “anyone who disagrees with the convention is stupid.” Here’s condescension for you: please don’t make your reading level my problem.

Ironic that you tell me to check my reading comprehension right after you misquote me, but nonetheless that is the impression your responses have given off - and you haven't done anything so far to dispel that impression.

What I said was, there’s an unambiguous way to parse the expression according to the commonly understood order of operations, but it is atypical to pay that much attention to the order of operations in practice.

Yes, and the question everyone is asking you is what is that unambiguous way? Which side of weak or strong juxtaposition do you come out on?

If you think that’s a value judgment, that’s on you-- I was very clear in my example about capitalization, “strictly adhering to the conventional order of operations” is something reasonable people often just don’t care about.

The value judgement was actually more to do with your choice of example, and how you applied that example to this debate. It gave me the distinct impression that you view this debate as not worth having, as anybody who does juxtaposition differently from you is wrong out the gate - and again, your further responses only reinforce my impression of you.