You’re still not doing any of the very simple things to demonstrate that it’s worth having a discussion with you
says person still not reading the posts where I did 🙄
Feel free to start
Been doing it the whole time dude. You’re the one ignoring the textbooks that prove you are wrong 🙄
then I can get back to reading fully
There’s nothing stopping you doing that now
Yes, you need to do them in a short comment.
So don’t post so much BS in the first place and it won’t turn into a long reply 🙄
Ok, here’s something short for you, you said…
Where in your textbook does it say explicitly that ab is not a multiplication, or that a multiplication is different from a product in any substantive sense, eh?
Ok, so yet again you have ignored my repeated please to you to read more, but you have again refused, so this emabrassment is of your own making…
Page 23, a÷bxc=axc÷b…
Page 282, answers on Page 577, a÷b(c+d) is a over b(c+d), and not ax(c+d) over b 🙄
You going to reply now? Or just gonna ignore it as usual?
provide an actual textbook example where any of the disputed claims you make are explicitly made
It’s in the actual textbook I already gave you, and you refused to read more than 2 sentences out of it 🙄
Where’s your textbook which says “ab is a product, not multiplication”?
Same textbook. See previous point.
there is a textbook reference saying “ab means the same as a × b
Yep, and does not say that they are equal, for reasons they are not equal,see above, from the very same textbook you kept lying about what it said 🙄
so your mental contortions are not more authoritative
I’ve just proven it was you who was making the mental contortions, as I have been telling you all along
your ability to interpret maths textbooks is poor
says person who claimed that “means” means “equals”, in contradiction of the whole rest of the textbook 🙄
My prediction: you’ll present some implicit references
And just like everything else, you were wrong about that too, 🙄 but “oh no! too long! I’m not going to read that”
And here you are admitting to someone else what I have been telling you the whole time 🙄
While reading some of his linked textbooks I found examples which define the solidus as operating on everything in the next term, which would have 1/ab = 1/(ab) = 1/(ab) = 1/ab
This is also how we were taught though as I recall it was not taught systematically
Yes it is, literally every textbook, not just Maths, but Physics, Engineering, etc. and it’s referenced in Cajori in 1928, they all use ab=(axb).
remember one teacher when I was about 17 complaining that people in her class were writing 1/a·b but should have been writing (1/a)·b
because (1/a) is 1 Term, a fraction, but 1/a is 2 Terms, 1 divided by a.
if you have a correct understanding of what the order of operations really are
rules
you can understand that these conventions all become a bit unwieldy when you have a very complex formula
not to anyone who knows all the rules 🙄
(ab)/(bc) not ((ab)/b)c (which is what the strict interpretation of PEMDAS
No it isn’t. ab=(axb), so ab/cd=(axb)/(cxd), (axb) done in the P step, (cxd) done in the P step, then you do the division - it’s not complicated! 😂 Literally every textbook in all subjects does it that way. That is the strict interpretation of PEMDAS 🙄
because “bc” just visually creates a single thing
a TERM. Come on, you can say it. 😂
even though bc(x-1)(y-1)·sin(b) is a single term
Nope! It’s 2 Terms 🙄
Because DumbMan doesn’t understand mathematical convention
So, I just call you DumbMan from now on? Got it! 😂
looks like he’s gone to sleep again now
It’s called having a life. So sorry to hear you don’t have one
That won’t be a problem if you actually wanted to do it
I actually did it and you confessed to not reading it
Bye!
I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong then., Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Where in your textbook does it say explicitly that ab is not a multiplication, or that a multiplication is different from a product in any substantive sense, eh?
You going to reply now? Or just gonna ignore it as usual?
None of the screenshots you put in that reply even use the word “multiplication”, so they are certainly not saying explicitly that ab is not a multiplication or that a multiplication is different from a product, are they. This level of reading comprehension is what got you here.
I’ve not read the rest; I’m sure you were wise enough to put your best attempt first.
None of the screenshots you put in that reply even use the word “multiplication”
So what do you call 10x3, exactly? I’ll wait 😂
so they are certainly not saying explicitly that ab is not a multiplication
They are saying explicitly that bc is a Term, and goes entirely into the denominator, not c into the numerator like in a/bxc does.
that a multiplication is different from a product
So, according to you, c going into the denominator, and c going into the numerator, are somehow not different 🤣🤣🤣 a/bxc, where c goes in the numerator, and a/bc, where c goes in the denominator, go ahead, explain it to me like I’m 5, how are they the same thing according to you 🤣🤣🤣
This level of reading comprehension is what got you here
says person who can’t tell the difference between a/bxc=axc/b, and a/bc=a/(bxc) 🤣🤣🤣
I’m sure you were wise enough to put your best attempt first
Hey, I was restricting it to the same textbook like you said. If you wanna go ahead and open it up to other textbooks , then explain how a/bxc=16 and a/bc=1 are the same thing , I’ll wait. 🤣🤣🤣 I’ve never encountered anyone who has claimed 1 and 16 are the same thing, so go ahead and explain it to me 🤣🤣🤣
Not important. It’s an example, not explicit. If I asked for an explicit reference for the meaning of the word “table”, a source that discusses carpentry but never uses the word itself is not explicit. Do you need me to explain in more detail what “explicit” means? Do you need me to explain why I’m demanding you find an explicit reference?
I, for one, am content that there is no such explicit reference for your interpretation of the meaning of the word multiplication. If you are finding it difficult to find one but are still convinced, that’s fine - just fulfill one of the other options you have to demonstrate it’s worth holding a discussion about mathematics.
Your second reference says “when multiplications are denoted by juxtaposition, as in 4c ÷ 3ab”. Very interesting. Maybe we can discuss that after you demonstrate it’s worth it.
Further down you have again quoted (but not highlighted) the section which says “other rules than those just described might have been adopted” which, again, is interesting.
None of the screenshots you put in that reply even use the word “multiplication”,
So let me help you out…
It’s an example, not explicit.
It explicitly says “Multiplication” at the bottom of the page! 😂
If I asked for an explicit reference for the meaning of the word “table”, a source that discusses carpentry but never uses the word itself is not explicit
And this page does use the word “Multiplication”. Are you seeing yet why I kept telling you to read more than 2 sentences? 😂
Do you need me to explain in more detail what “explicit” means?
Do you need me to explain in more detail what “read more than 2 sentences” means?
I, for one, am content that there is no such explicit reference for your interpretation of the meaning of the word multiplication
And yet there it is, right there on page 23. Who would thought? Oh yeah, people who have read more than 2 sentences out of the whole book 😂
Your second reference says “when multiplications are denoted by juxtaposition, as in 4c ÷ 3ab”. Very interesting.
Yeah, 1912 textbooks are “very interesting”, much more so than modern textbooks which never call it such 😂
Maybe we can discuss that after you demonstrate it’s worth it
I already pointed out the problem with your not reading more than 2 sentences out of a textbook again there
“other rules than those just described might have been adopted” which, again, is interesting
It’s not actually, if you know the history behind that comment, which I have no doubt that you don’t
You’re using different screenshots this time? Well done, you’ve progressed to ones that include the word, but unfortunately you seem to have forgotten the task. Try again!
Nope. Exact same page I already referred you to before, page 23.
Well done, you’ve progressed to ones that include the word
Just like the ones that include the word “Product”, eh? 🤣🤣🤣 Well done for reading beyond 1 sentence this time by the way. Now go back to the other ones and read beyond 1 sentence - you’ve just shown you’re capable of it
unfortunately you seem to have forgotten the task
Not me - the difference between axb is Multiplication, as per page 23, and ab is a Product, as per page 36. Still waiting on you doing your task of explaining how they give 2 different answers when, according to you, they are “the same thing” 🙄
The screenshot you started off with is a crop of the one you’re now talking about, so yes, different screenshots
Same page. you having trouble finding page 23, or you didn’t even look for it? BTW I left it out quite deliberately and asked you what you would call it, and you didn’t answer, then claimed that “they” (the textbook authors I presume) “they are certainly not saying explicitly that ab is not a multiplication or that a multiplication is different from a product, are they”, and yes, they most certainly are saying that, which you would know if you had read the textbook. 🙄 You, the person who only read the underlined parts in screenshots, even though I repeatedly said to keep reading in order to avoid this embarrassment, then followed that up with “This level of reading comprehension is what got you here”. Yep, this level of reading comprehension - you not reading the textbook, only the underlined parts of screenshots - is indeed what got you here 🙄
I’m curious - can you admit to that, even?
Can you admit that you’re basing your whole argument on only reading what I underlined in screenshots and not, you know, actually reading the textbook? 🙄
says person still not reading the posts where I did 🙄
Been doing it the whole time dude. You’re the one ignoring the textbooks that prove you are wrong 🙄
There’s nothing stopping you doing that now
So don’t post so much BS in the first place and it won’t turn into a long reply 🙄
Ok, here’s something short for you, you said…
Ok, so yet again you have ignored my repeated please to you to read more, but you have again refused, so this emabrassment is of your own making…
Page 23, a÷bxc=axc÷b…
Page 282, answers on Page 577, a÷b(c+d) is a over b(c+d), and not ax(c+d) over b 🙄
You going to reply now? Or just gonna ignore it as usual?
It’s in the actual textbook I already gave you, and you refused to read more than 2 sentences out of it 🙄
Same textbook. See previous point.
Yep, and does not say that they are equal, for reasons they are not equal,see above, from the very same textbook you kept lying about what it said 🙄
I’ve just proven it was you who was making the mental contortions, as I have been telling you all along
says person who claimed that “means” means “equals”, in contradiction of the whole rest of the textbook 🙄
And just like everything else, you were wrong about that too, 🙄 but “oh no! too long! I’m not going to read that”
And here you are admitting to someone else what I have been telling you the whole time 🙄
Yes it is, literally every textbook, not just Maths, but Physics, Engineering, etc. and it’s referenced in Cajori in 1928, they all use ab=(axb).
because (1/a) is 1 Term, a fraction, but 1/a is 2 Terms, 1 divided by a.
rules
not to anyone who knows all the rules 🙄
No it isn’t. ab=(axb), so ab/cd=(axb)/(cxd), (axb) done in the P step, (cxd) done in the P step, then you do the division - it’s not complicated! 😂 Literally every textbook in all subjects does it that way. That is the strict interpretation of PEMDAS 🙄
a TERM. Come on, you can say it. 😂
Nope! It’s 2 Terms 🙄
So, I just call you DumbMan from now on? Got it! 😂
It’s called having a life. So sorry to hear you don’t have one
I actually did it and you confessed to not reading it
I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong then., Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
None of the screenshots you put in that reply even use the word “multiplication”, so they are certainly not saying explicitly that ab is not a multiplication or that a multiplication is different from a product, are they. This level of reading comprehension is what got you here.
I’ve not read the rest; I’m sure you were wise enough to put your best attempt first.
So what do you call 10x3, exactly? I’ll wait 😂
They are saying explicitly that bc is a Term, and goes entirely into the denominator, not c into the numerator like in a/bxc does.
So, according to you, c going into the denominator, and c going into the numerator, are somehow not different 🤣🤣🤣 a/bxc, where c goes in the numerator, and a/bc, where c goes in the denominator, go ahead, explain it to me like I’m 5, how are they the same thing according to you 🤣🤣🤣
says person who can’t tell the difference between a/bxc=axc/b, and a/bc=a/(bxc) 🤣🤣🤣
Hey, I was restricting it to the same textbook like you said. If you wanna go ahead and open it up to other textbooks , then explain how a/bxc=16 and a/bc=1 are the same thing , I’ll wait. 🤣🤣🤣 I’ve never encountered anyone who has claimed 1 and 16 are the same thing, so go ahead and explain it to me 🤣🤣🤣
Not important. It’s an example, not explicit. If I asked for an explicit reference for the meaning of the word “table”, a source that discusses carpentry but never uses the word itself is not explicit. Do you need me to explain in more detail what “explicit” means? Do you need me to explain why I’m demanding you find an explicit reference?
I, for one, am content that there is no such explicit reference for your interpretation of the meaning of the word multiplication. If you are finding it difficult to find one but are still convinced, that’s fine - just fulfill one of the other options you have to demonstrate it’s worth holding a discussion about mathematics.
Your second reference says “when multiplications are denoted by juxtaposition, as in 4c ÷ 3ab”. Very interesting. Maybe we can discuss that after you demonstrate it’s worth it.
Further down you have again quoted (but not highlighted) the section which says “other rules than those just described might have been adopted” which, again, is interesting.
Says person who said…
So let me help you out…
It explicitly says “Multiplication” at the bottom of the page! 😂
And this page does use the word “Multiplication”. Are you seeing yet why I kept telling you to read more than 2 sentences? 😂
Do you need me to explain in more detail what “read more than 2 sentences” means?
And yet there it is, right there on page 23. Who would thought? Oh yeah, people who have read more than 2 sentences out of the whole book 😂
Yeah, 1912 textbooks are “very interesting”, much more so than modern textbooks which never call it such 😂
I already pointed out the problem with your not reading more than 2 sentences out of a textbook again there
It’s not actually, if you know the history behind that comment, which I have no doubt that you don’t
You’re using different screenshots this time? Well done, you’ve progressed to ones that include the word, but unfortunately you seem to have forgotten the task. Try again!
Nope. Exact same page I already referred you to before, page 23.
Just like the ones that include the word “Product”, eh? 🤣🤣🤣 Well done for reading beyond 1 sentence this time by the way. Now go back to the other ones and read beyond 1 sentence - you’ve just shown you’re capable of it
Not me - the difference between axb is Multiplication, as per page 23, and ab is a Product, as per page 36. Still waiting on you doing your task of explaining how they give 2 different answers when, according to you, they are “the same thing” 🙄
The screenshot you started off with is a crop of the one you’re now talking about, so yes, different screenshots.
I’m curious - can you admit to that, even?
Same page. you having trouble finding page 23, or you didn’t even look for it? BTW I left it out quite deliberately and asked you what you would call it, and you didn’t answer, then claimed that “they” (the textbook authors I presume) “they are certainly not saying explicitly that ab is not a multiplication or that a multiplication is different from a product, are they”, and yes, they most certainly are saying that, which you would know if you had read the textbook. 🙄 You, the person who only read the underlined parts in screenshots, even though I repeatedly said to keep reading in order to avoid this embarrassment, then followed that up with “This level of reading comprehension is what got you here”. Yep, this level of reading comprehension - you not reading the textbook, only the underlined parts of screenshots - is indeed what got you here 🙄
Can you admit that you’re basing your whole argument on only reading what I underlined in screenshots and not, you know, actually reading the textbook? 🙄