Math is not English

The order of operations messes with our reading habits.

The mathematical order of operations seems to be a source of confusion for some students, sometimes even frustration. For example, when presented with the expression
3 + 4(x-1)
some students ask: “Why can’t we just start by adding 3 + 4, and then multiplying 7 times (x-1)?”
My short answer is: “Because math is not English.” Then I ask: “Is there any parenthesis around the 3 + 4 sum?” When they say “no” I continue: “Then the parenthesis that is there right after the 4 claims that 4 for itself, for multiplication purposes. It will not let the 4 run away with the 3, oh no sir, no way! The multiplication operation has title to that 4, and to that (x-1) as well, and it does not care about the 3 the slightest bit. The addition operation holds a lesser priority than multiplication does, so it has to wait for its turn.”
I explain the PEMDAS rules using action verbs commonly applied to human situations, thus making the math symbols play the role of active, independent characters with human-like behaviors. This type of explanation makes my students understand the mathematical structure of the expression at hand but still some seem puzzled, or surprised, or even bothered by the fact that the applicable sequence of operation does not necessarily follow the simple left-to-right order. So in those cases I proceed with the following explanation:
There is a crucial difference between the way we read math, and the way we read English. This is very important. We always read English from left to right. Such a simple, linear, unidirectional way does not do it for math. It does not work. Reading math from left to right only, is insufficient, and inadequate. In math we have to read formulas and expressions not just from left to right but from right to left; from the top down; from the bottom up; from the inside out; from the outside in; and even around in circles. In short, every which way, else we run the risk of missing essential information about the structure of the thing. Reading math is not reading. Reading math is much more similar to what the eyes of a helicopter pilot do when they are flying over a mountain terrain, looking for a spot to safely land the helicopter. You look at everything, everywhere.
Written language mimics spoken language, going along with the flow of the story. English is perfect for telling stories. Math describes structures. It has an altogether different goal, so it cannot work the same way English does. Mathematical expressions do not resemble stories nearly enough the way they resemble gizmos, appliances, devices, or cars, objects made out of parts. The parts are connected to each other in a very specific way. Each part has its own function, and its own place within the whole thing. So, really, reading math from left to right only, makes as much sense as trying to “read a car” from left to right only.

The Square of a Sum

An arithmetic and geometric approach to Algebra

A very common mistake test takers make when they have been out of school for a while is that they automatically try to expand the square of a sum as if it was the same as the plain sum of the squares of the individual terms. For example, sometimes some students, when presented with say, (x + 5)², they wrongly expand it as x² + 25, leaving out the middle term 10x.
They forget they have to use the foil method to multiply the given sum times itself. Since typographically the sum of the squares looks like something that could equal the square of the sum, they guess they can expand the square that way, as if it was a real math rule, and then they get the problem wrong.
I try to preemptively address the possibility of this mistake, because both sums of squares and squares of sums show up a lot in the math section of standardized tests. For a long time I have used a drawing, with two little squares and two congruent rectangles filling up a larger square, to show the geometric interpretation (in terms of area) for the algebraic formula (a + b)² = a² + 2ab + b². I emphasize the middle term, 2ab, in this expansion, and I point to the corresponding two rectangles in the drawing.
The above approach is useful but many students forget the formula when it comes to actually applying it. Most do not realize it is a universal pattern where to plug any other expressions in.
So, lately I have been experimenting with a slightly different approach: I present two or three numerical examples first, before drawing the squares and rectangles. I ask the student to choose two numbers, and then I guide them through a sequence of calculations that allows them to actually compute and see the numerical difference between the square of the sum, and the sum of the squares. Then I ask them to multiply the original numbers, then to double this product. By asking all the questions in the right order, I have gotten comments from them like: “Wow!” or “How weird!” or “That is so funny!” or “This is very interesting!” or “Does it always work like that?” or “How can that be?” or “What is going on?” or “I’m sure there is a pattern here!” Then I draw the squares and rectangles with all the numbers in their proper places. So, creating the perception of a “mystery” with the numbers, and then explaining it away with the picture seems to work well. It makes sense for the students. They usually say: “Oh, right! Now I get it.”