Updates secrets for order of operations clarity

[druyang]

The original example is slightly confusing because division and multiplication can be swapped in some cases and does not clearly show the order of operations:

• The expected output (14) could be achieved through either (6 * 7) / 3 or (6 / 3) * 7.
• As a result you could write both secret_function2.(secret_function1.(x)) or secret_function1.(secret_function2.(x)), but only 1 will pass test cases when the anonymous functions have varying order of operations.
• In the revised version, the order matters and is clear (3+1=4, then 4*2=8 is different from 3*2=6, then 6+1=7)

[github-actions]

Thank you for contributing to exercism/elixir 💜 🎉. This is an automated PR comment 🤖 for the maintainers of this repository that helps with the PR review process. You can safely ignore it and wait for a maintainer to review your changes.

Based on the files changed in this PR, it would be good to pay attention to the following details when reviewing the PR:

• General steps

  • 🏆 Does this PR need to receive a label with a reputation modifier (x:size/{tiny,small,medium,large,massive})? (A medium reputation amount is awarded by default, see docs)

• Any exercise changed

  • 👤 Does the author of the PR need to be added as an author or contributor in <exercise>/.meta/config.json (see docs)?
  • 🔬 Do the analyzer and the analyzer comments exist for this exercise? Do they need to be changed?
  • 📜 Does the design file (<exercise>/.meta/design.md) need to be updated to document new implementation decisions?

• Concept exercise changed

  • 🌲 Do prerequisites and practices in config.json need to be updated?
  • 📖 Does the concept introduction provide all necessary information to solve this exercise?

---

Automated comment created by PR Commenter 🤖.

[angelikatyborska]

That's a very good point. Thank you for the improvements 💜