>not using parentheses

it's like you want your shit to be confusing

What kind of x's are those?

you should use * for multiplication as a habit, because ∙ and x will mean completely different things once you get to linear algebra.
But yes, if you're just doing calculations like the ones on your picture then it doesn't matter how you write it, ∙ x or *, it's the same thing.

>>7968139

If you're not a fucking elementary schooler there's really no reason to be using [math]\times[/math] or [math]\cdot[/math] for basic multiplication. As you've alluded to, they come to denote cross and dot products respectively when dealing with vectors and such (or Cartesian product between sets, or whatever else -- but not elementary scalar multiplication).

Just write them out next to each other. If you absolutely must denote elementary multiplication, use the [math]\cdot[/math] (the only instances I can think of are when explicitly multiplying two fractions to show the steps in your work, or when writing out complicated units).

>>7968139
In physics, ∙ is the dot/inner product and × is the cross/outer product of 2 vectors.

>>7968171

I forgot about defining your algebras and the operators with which you equip them, but I'm highly doubtful that OP needs to define multiplication on his ring or field of whatever he's doing. In any case, the convention is to define multiplication by [math]\cdot[/math] to avoid confusion (barring any strange non-Abelian algebras that can create conflicting notations etc.).

>>7968150
The letter x's are like that so it's easy to tell them apart from the multiplication x's.
It's what's taught in English schools

>>7968158
Never seen anyone write multiplication as little asterisks, it's always x or ∙, or no symbol to represent multiplication.

I did undergrad physics for a year, and there was never a use of the asterisk.
Any idea if the asterisk has its own meaning within maths or physics?

>>7968171
The symbol can make solving problems a lot easier to follow. I only use it occasionally, but there's no reason for me not to use it, if it helps me.

>>7968204

In any case, stick with the dot.

As I mentioned in >>7968190 , non-Abelian groups tend to use asterisks to denote their operator. I've seen it in physics typically to denote convolutions or complex conjugates. I'm sure more advanced algebras have their own uses of the asterisk as well. Quite frankly I have no clue what >>7968158 is talking about, because the asterisk is obviously the de facto symbol for multiplication in programming languages, but in terms of mathematical notation, it's way to useful to be wasted on multiplication.

>>7968233
>non-Abelian groups tend to use asterisks to denote their operator.
But everyone suppresses the actual operation and just uses juxtaposition 95% of the time.

Yes they can be used interchangeably in some contexts.

If you aren't aware of what those contexts are then do not worry, you have not yet ebcountered them so you wil probably not be answering questions in those contexts.

So for now use dot and cross interchangeably.

>>7968139
you can write whatever you want, draw a penis at the top of your paper and define it to imply multiplication henceforth complete you shitty exam that way.