As a human, if you write AB/CD, you either mean (AB)/(CD), or you're writing a trick question. You do not mean (AB/C)D, because if you did, you could write the equally short ABD/C. If you're appending a multiplication by D after AB/C, you could write AB/C×D. Meaning is borne by contrast.
In any case, the practice of writing "/2π" is pervasive enough that asserting that "PEMDAS" implies ordering explicit division left-to-right with implicit multiplication is at wrong at best.
I guess we can agree to disagree on the validity of implicit multiplication.
My larger point though is if we as an "advanced society" cannot agree on what this very basic notation means then how many times have we implemented something wrong.
Check the link above for images of two Cassio calculators producing different answers for a dead simple grade 5 math problem.
Just to also be clear, are you saying that
E = MC^2
is actually
E = (M x C)^2
since implied multiplication suggests that:
MC === (M x C)
rather than
MC === M x C
and by your argument above, if you thought otherwise you would simply rearrange the formula to be:
Prioritizing implicit multiplication prioritizes it over other multiplications / divisions (during the "MD" part of PEMDAS). Since exponents still come before any multiplication / division, E = MC^2 is interpreted the same.
In any case, the practice of writing "/2π" is pervasive enough that asserting that "PEMDAS" implies ordering explicit division left-to-right with implicit multiplication is at wrong at best.