I don't think I have any problems with signed numbers. I'm simply following the rules as laid down for when there are no parens in sight. You insist on inserting virtual parens into the equation so that it becomes more intuitively comfortable. I don't think you're 'wrong' exactly, I just think you don't care for the existing rule. I'm not that thrilled with it either, but I am willing to follow it - just the same as I'm willing to wait at a red light to make a left turn even though no cars are coming from the opposite direction and there are no cops around. Seems silly to have to do that, but it's the way the rule is laid down, so I do it that way.

>Alan,
>
>Given that the operand is the number negative two I am correctly following the rules of PEDMAS. I really don't know why you all have such problems with signed numbers.
>
>>But that's exactly why there are rules. Without the rules of math, the debate would never have a resolution. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that this is how the rules came about. Why pedmas in the first place. It's so we all end up in the same place. The rules say one thing, and you say another. You insist that the result provided by the rules is wrong. It's not wrong; it's what following the math rule produces. Not following the rules results in chaos - even if, intuitively, the result seems more reasonable.