Yeah sure
A “teacher” who doesn’t know that all lessons are simplifications that get corrected at a higher level, and confidentiality refers to children’s textbook as an infallible source of college level information.
A “teacher” incapable of differentiating between rules of a convention and the laws of mathematics.
A “teacher” incapable of looking up information on notations of their own specialization, and synthesizing it into coherent response.
Don’t bother mate. Even if you corner them on something, they absolutely will not budge.
I like many others brought up calculators and how common basic calculators only evaluate from left to right. They contend that this is not true and that calculators have always been able to obey order of operations. I even linked the manuals of twodifferent calculators which both had this operation.
He asserted (without evidence) that the first does not operate in this way (even though the manual says that you must re-order some expressions so that bracketed sub-expressions come first). He then characterised the second as a “chain calculator” for “niche purposes”. So he admits it works left-to-right, but still will not admit that he was wrong about his claim.
This calculator thing is not central to the discussion on order of operations, but it goes to show: you will not convince him of anything no matter what the evidence is.
By the way, after reading a few of his comments, I believe I can summarise his whackadoodle understanding if you want to continue tilting at windmills: he fundamentally cannot separate mathematics from the notation. Thus he distinguishes many things which are the same but which are written differently.
He calls a×b multiplication and ab a product. These are, of course, the exact same thing. Within a mathematical expression, the implicit multiplication in ab can, by some conventions, have a higher precedence than does the explicit multiplication in a×b, and he has taken that to mean that they are fundamentally different.
He thinks that a(b+c)=ab+bc is something to do with notation, not a fundamental relationship between multiplication and addition. (This is not a difference for him though). This he calls the “distributive law” which he distinguishes from the “distributive property” (I will say that no author would distinguish those two terms, because they’re just too easily confused. And many authors explicitly say that one is also known as the other). He says that a×(b+c) = ab + bc is an instance of the “distributive property”.
A “teacher” who doesn’t know that all lessons are simplifications that get corrected at a higher level,
As opposed to a Maths teacher who knows there are no corrections made at a higher level. Go ahead and look for a Maths textbook which includes one of these mysterious “corrections” that you refer to - I’ll wait 😂
refers to children’s textbook as an infallible source of college level information
A high school Maths textbook most certainly is an infallible source of “college level” information, given it contains the exact same rules 😂
A “teacher” incapable of differentiating between rules of a convention and the laws of mathematics
Well, that’s you! 😂 The one who quoted Wikipedia and not a Maths textbook 😂
A “teacher” incapable of looking up information on notations of their own specialization
You seem to think notation is only correct at exactly the level you claim to teach. Elementary school children get taught parentheses means you do stuff inside parentheses first, and nuh uh that’s wrong, and college calculus students get taught parentheses mean you do stuff inside parenthesis first, and also nuh uh that’s wrong, despite two centuries of textbooks showing that is in fact how parentheses work.
Nobody else in the world has any problem with this. All published textbooks and all pragmatic mathematics operate as though your pet peeve does not exist. Isn’t that crazy? It’s almost like the shit you insist upon is completely made-up, and does not matter to anyone besides you.
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
Man, this whole post has been embarrassing for you. Oof.
I can’t help but notice youve once again failed to address prefix and postfix notations.
And that you’ve not actually made any argument other than “nuh uh”
Not to mention the other threads you’ve been in. Yikes.
Your argument you haven’t made is backed up by math textbooks you haven’t provided written for children.
What is it that you want addressed?
How can that specific order of operations be a law of mathematics if it only applies to infix notation, and not prefix or postfix notations? Laws of mathematics are universal across notations.
Show me a textbook that discusses other notations and also says that order of operations is a law of mathematics.
You don’t have it, and you also aren’t a maths teacher, or a teacher at all. Just because you say it a lot doesn’t make it true.
Your argument you haven’t made is backed up by math textbooks you haven’t provided written for children
That’s quite a word salad. You wanna try that again, but make sense this time?
Your argument you haven’t made
If I didn’t make it then it’s not my argument, it’s somebody else’s 😂
is backed up by math textbooks you haven’t provided
as well as the textbooks I have provided 😂
written for children
All my textbooks are for teenagers and adults
How can that specific order of operations be a law of mathematics if it only applies to infix notation, and not prefix or postfix notations
I already addressed that here. I knew you were making up that I hadn’t addressed something 🙄
Laws of mathematics are universal across notations
Correct, they do.
also says that order of operations is a law of mathematics.
If you think it’s not a Law, then all you have to do is give an example which proves it isn’t. I’ll wait
You don’t have it
You mean you don’t have a counter-example which proves it’s not a Law
you also aren’t a maths teacher
says liar
Just because you say it a lot doesn’t make it true.
You know you just saying it’s not true doesn’t make it not true, right? 🤣🤣🤣
BTW, going back to when you said
8÷2x4 PEMDAS: 8÷2x4 = 8÷8 = 1
Here it is from a textbook I came across this week which proves I was right that you did it wrong 😂
Therefore, doing Multiplication first for 8÷2x4 is {(8x4)÷2}, not 8÷(2x4) - whatever you want to do first, you write first - exactly as I told you to begin with 🙄
Left to right is a convention, yes, doing Multiplication and Division before Addition and Subtraction is a rule 🙄
A claim entirely unsupported by the textbook example you provided. Nowhere does it say that one is a convention but not the other, it only says that removing brackets changes the meaning in some situations, which is fully within the scope of a convention.
For the 3rd time it does have order of operations 🙄You just do them in some random order do you?
There you go again, just admitting you don’t know what postfix and prefix notations are.
If you’re ordering your operations based what the operator is, like PEDMAS, then what you’re doing isn’t prefix or postfix.
I’ll tell you what, here is a great free article from Colorado State university talking about prefix, postfix, and infix notations.
Note how it says the rules about operator precedence are for the notation which itself is a convention, as all notations are, and how prefix and postfix don’t need those rules
says person who doesn’t know the difference between conventions and rules, and thinks postfix notation doesn’t have rules 🙄
How embarrassing for you.
Here are some more materials:
Plus dozens of Quora answers, articles from online academies and learning centers, that I figured you’d just dismiss.
But to top it all off, if this was truely a law of mathematics, then show me a proof, theorem, or even a mathematical conjecture, about order of operations.
Strange that this way of assigning meaning to a string of mathematical symbols is a convention then, but not the other part that is mentioned in the same paragraph 🤔🤔🤔
Oh do you not own that textbook physically? The one you’ve been misquoting for months? The one you say you totally didn’t find on the Internet Archive, with that exact filename?
The one that even in your screenshot, just says brackets are “full symbolism” for order of operations, without magically reordering when exponents happen, sometimes?
No, came from another person like you thinking it supported their argument, but it didn’t. 🤣🤣🤣 I think it may have even been one in that thesis, that you thought proved me wrong, except it doesn’t - it proved the thesis author wrong 🤣🤣🤣
The one you’ve been misquoting for months?
I haven’t misquoted any liar
The one you say you totally didn’t find on the Internet Archive, with that exact filename?
You know they’re all going to have the exact filename that the PDF had when it came with the printed textbook right?? 🤣🤣🤣 When I pointed this out to someone else they stopped replying in embarrassment, but doesn’t stop you from replying! 🤣🤣🤣
The one that even in your screenshot, just says brackets are “full symbolism” for order of operations, without magically reordering when exponents happen, sometimes?
That’s quite a word salad. I have no idea what your point is, if you even have one
the exact filename that the PDF had when it came with the printed textbook
The textbook from 1817?
You’re bad at this, and dumb enough to say out loud that you think responding and not responding both prove you right. The nature of bad faith is that there is no right answer and nobody you’ve ever talked to on this website goes away unaware that you’re just full of shit.
To a “maths teacher”
Yeah sure
A “teacher” who doesn’t know that all lessons are simplifications that get corrected at a higher level, and confidentiality refers to children’s textbook as an infallible source of college level information.
A “teacher” incapable of differentiating between rules of a convention and the laws of mathematics.
A “teacher” incapable of looking up information on notations of their own specialization, and synthesizing it into coherent response.
Uh huh, sounds totally legit
Don’t bother mate. Even if you corner them on something, they absolutely will not budge.
I like many others brought up calculators and how common basic calculators only evaluate from left to right. They contend that this is not true and that calculators have always been able to obey order of operations. I even linked the manuals of two different calculators which both had this operation.
He asserted (without evidence) that the first does not operate in this way (even though the manual says that you must re-order some expressions so that bracketed sub-expressions come first). He then characterised the second as a “chain calculator” for “niche purposes”. So he admits it works left-to-right, but still will not admit that he was wrong about his claim.
This calculator thing is not central to the discussion on order of operations, but it goes to show: you will not convince him of anything no matter what the evidence is.
By the way, after reading a few of his comments, I believe I can summarise his whackadoodle understanding if you want to continue tilting at windmills: he fundamentally cannot separate mathematics from the notation. Thus he distinguishes many things which are the same but which are written differently.
As opposed to a Maths teacher who knows there are no corrections made at a higher level. Go ahead and look for a Maths textbook which includes one of these mysterious “corrections” that you refer to - I’ll wait 😂
A high school Maths textbook most certainly is an infallible source of “college level” information, given it contains the exact same rules 😂
Well, that’s you! 😂 The one who quoted Wikipedia and not a Maths textbook 😂
You again 😂 Wikipedia isn’t a Maths textbook
My good bitch, we’ve seen you sneer about college theses that say you’re full of shit.
You seem to think notation is only correct at exactly the level you claim to teach. Elementary school children get taught parentheses means you do stuff inside parentheses first, and nuh uh that’s wrong, and college calculus students get taught parentheses mean you do stuff inside parenthesis first, and also nuh uh that’s wrong, despite two centuries of textbooks showing that is in fact how parentheses work.
Nobody else in the world has any problem with this. All published textbooks and all pragmatic mathematics operate as though your pet peeve does not exist. Isn’t that crazy? It’s almost like the shit you insist upon is completely made-up, and does not matter to anyone besides you.
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.
@mindbleach @SmartmanApps Let’s have civil discussion.
Man, this whole post has been embarrassing for you. Oof.
I can’t help but notice youve once again failed to address prefix and postfix notations.
And that you’ve not actually made any argument other than “nuh uh”
Not to mention the other threads you’ve been in. Yikes.
We can all tell you’re not a maths teacher.
Nope. I’m the only one who has backed up what they’ve said with Maths textbooks 🙄
What is it that you want addressed?
Backed up by Maths textbooks 🙄
Says person who actually isn’t a Maths teacher, hence no textbooks 😂
Your argument you haven’t made is backed up by math textbooks you haven’t provided written for children.
How can that specific order of operations be a law of mathematics if it only applies to infix notation, and not prefix or postfix notations? Laws of mathematics are universal across notations.
Show me a textbook that discusses other notations and also says that order of operations is a law of mathematics.
You don’t have it, and you also aren’t a maths teacher, or a teacher at all. Just because you say it a lot doesn’t make it true.
That’s quite a word salad. You wanna try that again, but make sense this time?
If I didn’t make it then it’s not my argument, it’s somebody else’s 😂
as well as the textbooks I have provided 😂
All my textbooks are for teenagers and adults
I already addressed that here. I knew you were making up that I hadn’t addressed something 🙄
Correct, they do.
If you think it’s not a Law, then all you have to do is give an example which proves it isn’t. I’ll wait
You mean you don’t have a counter-example which proves it’s not a Law
says liar
You know you just saying it’s not true doesn’t make it not true, right? 🤣🤣🤣
BTW, going back to when you said
Here it is from a textbook I came across this week which proves I was right that you did it wrong 😂
Therefore, doing Multiplication first for 8÷2x4 is {(8x4)÷2}, not 8÷(2x4) - whatever you want to do first, you write first - exactly as I told you to begin with 🙄
In your screenshot of a textbook, they refer to it as a convention twice.
And you still haven’t explained prefix or postfix notation not having order of operations.
Get rekd idiot
Left to right is a convention, yes, doing Multiplication and Division before Addition and Subtraction is a rule 🙄
For the 3rd time it does have order of operations 🙄 You just do them in some random order do you? No wonder you don’t know how Maths works
says person who doesn’t know the difference between conventions and rules, and thinks postfix notation doesn’t have rules 🙄
A claim entirely unsupported by the textbook example you provided. Nowhere does it say that one is a convention but not the other, it only says that removing brackets changes the meaning in some situations, which is fully within the scope of a convention.
There you go again, just admitting you don’t know what postfix and prefix notations are.
If you’re ordering your operations based what the operator is, like PEDMAS, then what you’re doing isn’t prefix or postfix.
I’ll tell you what, here is a great free article from Colorado State university talking about prefix, postfix, and infix notations.
Note how it says the rules about operator precedence are for the notation which itself is a convention, as all notations are, and how prefix and postfix don’t need those rules
How embarrassing for you.
Here are some more materials:
But to top it all off, if this was truely a law of mathematics, then show me a proof, theorem, or even a mathematical conjecture, about order of operations.
That screenshot calls it a convention you troll.
says the actual troll, who didn’t notice it was talking about left to right,. which is indeed a convention which it is explaining 🤣🤣🤣
Strange that this way of assigning meaning to a string of mathematical symbols is a convention then, but not the other part that is mentioned in the same paragraph 🤔🤔🤔
Oh do you not own that textbook physically? The one you’ve been misquoting for months? The one you say you totally didn’t find on the Internet Archive, with that exact filename?
The one that even in your screenshot, just says brackets are “full symbolism” for order of operations, without magically reordering when exponents happen, sometimes?
No, came from another person like you thinking it supported their argument, but it didn’t. 🤣🤣🤣 I think it may have even been one in that thesis, that you thought proved me wrong, except it doesn’t - it proved the thesis author wrong 🤣🤣🤣
I haven’t misquoted any liar
You know they’re all going to have the exact filename that the PDF had when it came with the printed textbook right?? 🤣🤣🤣 When I pointed this out to someone else they stopped replying in embarrassment, but doesn’t stop you from replying! 🤣🤣🤣
That’s quite a word salad. I have no idea what your point is, if you even have one
The textbook from 1817?
You’re bad at this, and dumb enough to say out loud that you think responding and not responding both prove you right. The nature of bad faith is that there is no right answer and nobody you’ve ever talked to on this website goes away unaware that you’re just full of shit.
You can’t even read your own screenshot.