Is the P E M/D A/S convention necessary to be compatible with exponent notation?

If we write:

then wouldn't it be impossible to reverse the priority of exponents and addition if we use our current notation for exponents?

- March 20th 2011, 10:56 PMlamp23Is the PEMDAS convention necessary to be compatible with exponent notation?
Is the P E M/D A/S convention necessary to be compatible with exponent notation?

If we write:

then wouldn't it be impossible to reverse the priority of exponents and addition if we use our current notation for exponents? - March 20th 2011, 11:51 PMProve It
I don't understand your question - it's very clear that you need to do the exponentiation before the addition...

- March 21st 2011, 12:14 AMlamp23
I'm asking if the order of operations convention that we adopt, namely P E M/D A/S, could have been a different convention. It seems possible that we could have adopted a convention of P E A/S M/D i.e. reversing the priority of addition and multiplication so that .

However, I don't see how we could do something similar with exponents. - March 21st 2011, 02:06 AMemakarovQuote:

Is the P E M/D A/S convention necessary to be compatible with exponent notation?

*necessary*because you can make a convention to do M/D after A/S. However, our notation for exponents does seem to imply that exponentiation has the highest priority.