The whole point is that when there are no parenthesis, you must still follow the order of operations. Given no parenthesis, in

-2^2

the exponentiation goes first and then the unary.

Also, -2 can indeed be expressed as 0-2, but there were no parenthesis in the original function posed and there should have been to be explicit. You can not arbitrarily add parenthesis to one and not the other when no parenthesis existed.

So, I still disagree :o)


>Tracy,
>
>>Except that -2 written out is 0-2 then it becomes 0-2^2
>
>No, if you are going to make a substition like that you must put parens around it. Otherwise you will misinterpret any other operators' precendence.
>
>-2^2 = (0-2)^2
>
>When y'all throw around the negative number = negative 1 * a positve number, the same thing should be done
>
>-2^2 = (-1 * 2)^2
>
>And on that note... why has negative one treated as a special case by you and Alan? Your arguments attaches more significance to that - symbol when it is in front of a one than when it is in front of the two. Besides what is negative one but negative one times positive one so it's really (-1 * 1 * 2 )^2.. no wait there's a negative number in there so obfuscate it more(-1 * 1 * 1 * 2)^2 and so on ad infinitum.