I hesitate to accept the word of someone who calls himself Dr. Math as definitive ;-) (And I'm not sure whether his affiliation with Drexel is a plus or a minus). He could be some disheveled grad student shackled to an abacus in the basement.

Just having fun. I may already be getting cabin fever.

>I guess you missed the previous messages where Dr Math was not acceptable as a source of mathematics (even though it is hosted by Drexel University). In fact, no links would be accepted according to some of the messages :o)
>
>However, I did email the Mathematical Association of America, and if they reply, I will post it. Not sure that will be acceptable to everyone either since it will obviously prove half correct and half incorrect in their view.
>
>
>>Maybe this will settle the "argument"
>>Dr. Math says -4: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/53194.html
>>
>>As does Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
>>
>>>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)