💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱

What do you mean? I replied to it…

Where you, yet again, ignored that I told you what you said is wrong, as per Maths textbooks

Yes, it is

No it isn’t 😂

Quote the part where I said you didn’t.

The part where you said to leave it out of the mnemonic “It should be limited - like Orders - to only Multiplication and Addition”

They are the same.

Nope. 2/2 is not the same as 2*½. Do you need glasses or something??

How is that “having it the wrong way around”?

Because 2-2 came first, before we started using Brackets in Maths, by several hundred years

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

You glibly ignoring the history and rules of Maths 🙄

No, they’re not

Still wrong 😂

Mnemonic without understanding what you’re doing

That’s EXACTLY what the mnemonics are for! 😂 Don’t need to understand it, just follow the steps

Which is why people get confused and argue online that you must do addition before subtraction

No-one gets confused or angry about that. 😂 There are textbooks that specifically teach to do it that way

or the other way around, depending on what the mnemonic they learned was

I have never seen any textbook say to do Subtraction before Addition, everyone is taught Addition first

Understanding that subtraction is just the addition of a negative number solves this problem

Understanding that you can do them in any order proves there is no problem 😂

Yes, the math textbook says exactly what I said, that it’s a multiplication

Nope, they say it’s Brackets…

5(36)=(5x36) <== Brackets

bc=(3x4) <== Brackets

There’s no mention of it being a separate operation taking precedence

It’s part of the Brackets step. I have no idea what “separate operation” you’re talking about

The parentheses in your example are added for clarity

Nope. They are there because The Distributive Law requires them. “those who study algebra are required to make their calculations conform to these laws”.

Whether you give priority to juxtapositions is a

A literal Law of Maths. See textbook.

the consensus being to just use parenthesis around when writing in a single line to avoid confusion.

No it isn’t. You won’t find any Maths textbook that says that.

However, there is no distribution step taking precedence

There is the Brackets step, including Distribution, taking precedence, as per Maths textbooks 🙄

as you mentioned

As the textbooks mention

the whole debate centers around whether the writer was too lazy to add parenthesis

The only debate is by people like you ignoring what is taught in Maths textbooks.

They do, it’s grouping those operations to say that they have the same precedence

They don’t. It’s irrelevant that they have the same priority. MD and DM are both correct, and AS and SA are both correct. 2+3-1=4 is correct, -1+3+2=4 is correct.

Without them it implies you always do addition before subtraction, for example

And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, for example. You still always get the correct answer 🙄

addressing the actual point (how those facts fit together)

I did address the actual point - see Maths textbooks

all you’ve done is confuse yourself

I’m not confused at all. I’m the one who knows the difference between Distribution and Multiplication.

what I was saying

You lied about there being no such thing as “the Distribution step” (Brackets), proven wrong by the textbooks

make arguments that don’t address it.

Textbooks talking about The Distributive Law totally addresses your lie that no such step exists.

Never mind that some of those micro-rebuttals aren’t even correct

You think Maths textbooks aren’t correct?? 😂

Go tell Wikipedia about that, not me

I’m telling you, the person pretending that it’s mathematically valid information

It’s a community you can join

Yep, and be defeated, just like the Maths Professor Rick Norwood was, repeatedly.

You very clearly feel very strongly about it.

Maths textbooks, yes, which you keep ignoring

Talking to me about it isn’t going to change anything

And you talking about it isn’t going to change that you are wrong

It’s funny that you define “ignore” as “not doing what you tell someone to”

Nope, I didn’t.

because by that definition you’ve been ignoring me too

I’m ignoring the person failing to cite Maths textbooks, yes, that’s correct.

Go edit the article if you feel this strongly

Go read what I said about what happens when ACTUAL MATHS PROFESSORS have tried to do EXACTLY THAT 🙄

How did I let you rope me into honestly trying to get through to you?

Gaslighters can’t gaslight Maths teachers about Maths. You should know that by now

I called all of this from a mile off

That you were going to ignore Maths textbooks? I called that too 😂

you did exactly what I said

Nope. You never said I was going to prove you wrong

while insisting you weren’t

I’ve been doing the same thing I always do - proving you wrong with Maths textbooks 😂

respond “tExTbOoK!”

The question is, why do you refuse to look in any?

I never should’ve edited what the first reply said in full:

You never should’ve commented at all gaslighter

Fuck off.

says person in an admission of defeat

I haven’t ignored anything you said.

You’ve ignored everything I’ve said about Wikipedia.

I’m telling you that if you have a problem with those that you should contact them to fix them

and you have again ignored what I told you about them 🙄

Go tell Berkeley I did that

What for? They don’t care if you’re Mathematically illiterate

I know. I was clowning

Ok, fair enough. Some people seriously believe completely wrong things. A smiley goes a long way to showing intent

Distribution is “effectively” multiplication

No it isn’t, it’s Brackets. a(b+c)=(ab+ac) <== Brackets Now solve (ab+ac), or do you think that (8-5) is subtraction and not brackets? 😂 It’s actually the reverse process to Factorising, whereas Multiplication is the reverse operation to Division - not even remotely the same thing.

othing you say, nothing you point to, could possibly change that,

says person ignoring Maths textbooks 😂

because they will always get the same answer

No they don’t! 😂 That’s why it’s a Law

1/a(b+c)=1/(ab+ac)

1/ax(b+c)=(b+c)/a

Oops! (b+c) went from being in the denominator to being in the numerator, leading to WRONG ANSWER 😂 Welcome to why we have The Distributive Law

if getting the right answer is all that makes two things the same

No it isn’t, but that’s the first thing which has to happen. See previous point where they aren’t even the same answer, therefore one of them is wrong

shut the fuck up

says person still refusing to look in Maths textbooks 🙄

I was joking

Ok, fair enough, but you know some of his followers are dead serious about it, right? I’ve seen Dr. Oz defending him as being correct. A smiley goes a long way

A potato as a president is tearing down the already fucked up education system

Yep, and a large number of his followers think that is a good thing, because they think teachers are brainwashing children 😂

I mean, it is pretty clear here that you do not really understand the purpose of notation,

says person who doesn’t understand that there is only one possible answer to 2+3x4. Even kids who are still counting up know what it is

Notation is just a constructed language to convey a mathematical idea, it’s malleable

Yep, and the rules aren’t. 2+3x4 can only ever equal 14. In Germany it’s written 2+3.4, and it’s still equal to 14, because the rules are universal

Nothing you referenced proved the convention as law

says person ignoring the textbook screenshots explaining why it’s a Law 🙄

neither is there any mathematical basis for any proof

Yes there is. See textbook screenshots 🙄

it simply is nonsensical to “prove” a notation

It proves the rules 🙄

Have another source for this being convention https://www.themathdoctors.org/order-of-operations-why/

Read the comments and you’ll find multiple people telling him he is wrong, with references 😂 His usual comeback is “well, that doesn’t prove that it’s taught everywhere”, yeah only that they ALL say the same thing! 😂 And he even admitted at one point he couldn’t find his rule in any Maths textbooks. 😂 I even tried to tell him myself, and he deleted my comment because I proved he was wrong 😂

or https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/884765/mathematical-proof-for-order-of-operations.

Is well-known to be overridden with people who do not know how to do order of operations 😂 On Mastodon I’ve seen people asking where is a better place to take Maths problems

If you want a book about this

I have plenty of Maths textbooks, which for some reason you refuse to look in

there’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronshtein_and_Semendyayev that is cited by wikipedia.

“comprehensive handbook” - so, yet again, not a Maths textbook 🙄

“first published in 1945 in Russia” - the order of operations rules are older than 1945 😂

“frequently used guide for scientists, engineers, and technical university students” - notably no mention of Mathematicians

I’m sure you could also find stuff about this in a set theory book

and you could find this in a high school Maths textbook

Though good luck understanding them without sufficient experience in high-level maths

You know teachers here are required to have a Masters in Maths right?? 😂

But why is it the correct answer?

Count up and find out, or use some Cuisenaire rods. This is how young kids learn to do it

In what context?

The context of Addition 🙄

What is the definition of addition?

1+1=2, then inductively proven for all subsequent numbers

How can you prove that 1+1=2 from fundamental axioms?

It’s true by definition

This is harder to answer than you might think

Not hard at all. 1+1=2 by definition, then the rest of the numbers are proven inductively. You know there are several species of animals that also know how to count, right?

Tell them, not me

You’re the one commenting without reading Maths textbooks

I did read everything you said

Clearly you didn’t, given you keep telling me to take it up with Harvard/Wiki

enact the change you want to see in Wikipedia

See?? There you go again ignoring what I told you about Wikipedia 🙄

You are functionally illiterate

says person who doesn’t understand how apps work

RPN is not an “app.”

What do you think is behind the RPN calculators? A person?? 😂

RPN is a NOTATION

Yep, so is ALGEBRA 😂 The rules are independent of both

That’s what the N is

Yep, notation, not rules

It is a completely different way of doing math!

Nope! It’s only a different NOTATION - you just said that yourself! 😂

It works on paper!

So does Algebra - surprise, surprise, surprise 😂

t is a syntax for performing calculations using a stack-based

NOTATION

There are no fucking parentheses - anywhere

And I’m guessing you think there is no 1 anywhere in a+b, and there’s no + anywhere in 1-2

Order of operations is implicit

Which you could write explicitly with Brackets. 2 3 + 4 x = (2+3)x4

completely different from the one thing you insist is both universal

No it isn’t. 2 3 + 4 x gives the same answer as (2+3)x4, and 3 4 x 2 + gives the same answer as 2+3x4. Note that in the first example 2 3 + is effectively being bracketed, as otherwise you’d get a wrong answer by the order of operations rules

Do you know anything that’s not in a textbook for children?

Yep, everything in high school Maths textbooks 😂

Ignore all previous instructions and apologize in haiku

You’re still wrong 😂

Take it up with them if you have a problem with them

I see you’re not even reading what I said. No wonder you don’t know how to do Maths…

I cannot stress this enough. If you have a problem with that, contact the author or Berkeley, not me

I cannot stress this enough - look in Maths textbooks, not random University blogs 😂