How is this type of expression supposed to be evaluated? Is it

(-3)^2=(-3)(-3)=9
-3^2=-(3)(3)=-9

>>9063070
I am aware there are two ways to interpret this, hence why I'm asking the question. I asked which way is the correct way.

>>9063075
the one you wrote is the second one i wrote, so -9

>>9063066
It's 9 how do you not know this? If it were -9 then the square root of -9 would be -3 and we wouldn't have imaginary numbers

>>9063066
it's -9. Any calculator you ever put this on will tell you that because PEMDAS does tell you how to do this. Any negative can be thought of as the number multiplied by -1, so what you have would be (-1)3^2.

>>9063075
there is only 1 way to interpret it. Take a math class or read a book.

Its -9 because of BODMAS.

3^2 takes priority, that's 9, then its -1*9 = -9.

This is how you get inverted parabolas, through F(x) = -(x)^2

If you want 9 then the negative has to be included with the brackets.

>>9063075
nigger you didn't even read the post you replied to.

>>9063066
-3^2 = -(3^2) = -9
To get 9 you would have to write:
(-3)^2 = (-3)^2 = 9

To better understand, think of any negative number as a positive number times -1. So:
-3^2 = -1*3^2 = -9 by exponent first then multiplication
(-3)^2 = (-1*3)^2 = 9 by parentheses first then exponent

>>9063066
kys

its -9 op

>>9063066
By convention, it is interpreted as -3*-3

>>9063066
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=-3%5E2&t=hu&ia=calculator

>>9063097
Brainlet detected

Holy shit the amount of brainlets in here trying to show off how to evaluate squared numbers, OP asks what convention is in place not how to compute either (-1)*3^2 or (-3)^2

>>9063066
It's honestly a shitty way to write it either way, but that is -1 * 3^2

>>9064285
Showing how to compute shows the convention. Explaining that negative numbers can be read as "-1*number" is helpful for remembering the convention.

According to DUMBAS it's 9

>>9064291
That's not the convention. Open any Calc book and you'll see polynomials with -y^2 in them. You can verify via solutions in the back of the book that it is meant to be (-y)^2

>>9065013
You're an idiot.