mathematicians suck at parentheses

it's true

Really, when I see in a math book

D = -N . P   [D is a scalar, N and P are vectors]

...is it -(N . P), or ((-N) . P)?

Of course, I'm too lazy to check, but those may or may not be equivalent.

Is it that hard for mathematicians to use parentheses to clarify things a bit?

I'd assume the first option, no wait the second
I forget how dot products work

those are equivalent. As a 4th year math student, i can tell that mathematicians in general try to avoid redundant notation.

wouldn't it be [(-N) . P] because the P vector isn't negative, only the N?

>>4
read
>>3
think...

the following are all correct notation,
-N.P
[-N.P]
(-N).(P)
(-N.P)
((-N).P)
[(-N).P]
(if you dont see where this is going, go back to algebra)
the parentheses and brackets are a really there to just make reading a bit easier. either way you get negative N dot P
pretty much no combonation of brackets and paren's are going to change that. ( would love to see some one try )

stop trying to read math notation like a badly made parser.

>>1
*sigh*

(-N) . P = sum_{i=1}^{k} (- n_i p_i) = - sum_{i=1}^{k} (n_i p_i) = - (N . P)

Same damn thing. Mathematicians omit the parentheses because they do not clarify, they clutter and confuse.