My good bitch, we’ve seen you sneer about college theses that say you’re full of shit.
I see you didn’t actually look at the thesis. You know, the one that the author cites 2 maths textbooks, but didn’t read either of them beyond the bit they were quoting, and in fact prove the author is wrong and that I am right 🤣🤣🤣
Anything else you wanna prove you didn’t read? 🤣🤣🤣 P.s. some of the teachers in the study also literally proved the thesis author wrong in their responses.
You seem to think notation is only correct at exactly the level you claim to teach
Nope, liar. All levels after Primary school.
Elementary school children get taught parentheses means you do stuff inside parentheses first
Because they haven’t been taught The Distributive Law yet, and so there is nothing outside for them to do - they get taught this in Year 7 🙄
nuh uh that’s wrong
as per high school and University Maths textbooks 🙄
college calculus students get taught parentheses mean you do stuff inside parenthesis first
No they’re not
despite two centuries of textbooks showing that is in fact how parentheses work
You’re the one ignoring 2 centuries of textbooks dude, not me - you didn’t even check the textbooks cited in the thesis! 😂
All published textbooks and all pragmatic mathematics operate as though your pet peeve does not exist
says person who can’t cite a single example of such 🙄
It’s almost like the shit you insist upon is completely made-up, and does not matter to anyone besides you
says person who is proven wrong by the textbooks cited in the thesis, amongst many such others 😂
Nothing you’ve highlighted is the part you’re fucking up. Nobody else in the world has any trouble figuring out a(b+c) is ab+ac. You are the only person in the world who thinks a(b+c)2 is anything but a(b+c)(b+c).
as per high school and University Maths textbooks
I linked your tweet bitching about all university maths not doing your bullshit. It’s almost like you’re the one stuck. Weird, huh?
says person who can’t cite a single example of such
I see you didn’t actually look at the thesis. You know, the one that the author cites 2 maths textbooks, but didn’t read either of them beyond the bit they were quoting, and in fact prove the author is wrong and that I am right 🤣🤣🤣
Anything else you wanna prove you didn’t read? 🤣🤣🤣 P.s. some of the teachers in the study also literally proved the thesis author wrong in their responses.
Nope, liar. All levels after Primary school.
Because they haven’t been taught The Distributive Law yet, and so there is nothing outside for them to do - they get taught this in Year 7 🙄
as per high school and University Maths textbooks 🙄
No they’re not
You’re the one ignoring 2 centuries of textbooks dude, not me - you didn’t even check the textbooks cited in the thesis! 😂
says person who can’t cite a single example of such 🙄
says person who is proven wrong by the textbooks cited in the thesis, amongst many such others 😂
Nothing you’ve highlighted is the part you’re fucking up. Nobody else in the world has any trouble figuring out a(b+c) is ab+ac. You are the only person in the world who thinks a(b+c)2 is anything but a(b+c)(b+c).
I linked your tweet bitching about all university maths not doing your bullshit. It’s almost like you’re the one stuck. Weird, huh?
Here’s four in a row, for the dozenth time. No published textbook ever has said that a(b+c)2 will square a.
None.
Prove me wrong.
That’s because I’m not fucking up anything! You on the other hand, fuck this up all the time! 🤣🤣🤣
I see you haven’t read anyone else’s comments, including your own 🤣🤣🤣
Proving you do have trouble with a(b+c)=(ab+ac) 🤣🤣🤣
says person who can’t cite a single example of any of them doing it correctly 🙄
And I never said any did. a(b+c)=(ab+ac) on the other hand… 🤣🤣🤣
Have done that repeatedly, and you keep ignoring them all. 🙄
You forgot to say anything relevant.