this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
734 points (91.1% liked)
Science Memes
17906 readers
1590 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They did the joke wrong. To do it right you need to use the ÷ symbol. Because people never use that after they learn fractions, people treat things like a + b ÷ c + d as
Or (a + b) ÷ (c + d) when they should be treating it as a + (b ÷ c) + d.
That's the most common one of these "troll math" tricks. Because notating as
Is much more common and useful. So people get used to grouping everything around the division operator as if they're in parentheses.
Or
12 / 2(6)
And trying to argue this is 36.
Now that's a good troll math thing because it gets really deep into the weeds of mathematical notation. There isn't one true order of operations that is objectively correct, and on top of that, that's hardly the way most people would write that. As in, if you wrote that by hand, you wouldn't use the
/symbol. You'd either use ÷ or a proper fraction.It's a good candidate for nerd sniping.
Personally, I'd call that 36 as written given the context you're saying it in, instead of calling it 1. But I'd say it's ambiguous and you should notate in a way to avoid ambiguities. Especially if you're in the camp of multiplication like
a(b)being different fromaband/ora × b.Well, now you might be running into syntax issues instead of PEMDAS issues depending on what they're confused about. If it's 12 over 2*6, it's 1. If it's 12 ÷ 2 x 6, it's 36.
A lot of people try a bunch of funky stuff to represent fractions in text form (like mixing spaces and no spaces) when they should just be treating it like a programmer has to, and use parenthesis if it's a complex fraction in basic text form.
The P in PEMDAS means to solve everything within parentheses first; there is no "distribution" step or rule that says multiplying without a visible operator other than parentheses comes first. So yes, 36 is valid here. It's mostly because PEMDAS never shows up in the same context as this sort of multiplication or large fractions
and without a(b+c)=(ab+ac), now solve (ab+ac)
It's a LAW of Maths actually, The Distributive Law.
It's not "Multiplying", it's Distributing, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)
No it isn't. To get 36 you have disobeyed The Distributive Law, thus it is a wrong answer
people like you try to gaslight others that there's no such thing as The Distributive Law
Are you under the impression that atomizing your opponents statements and making a comment about each part individually without addressing the actual point (how those facts fit together) is a good debate tactic? Because it seems like all you've done is confuse yourself about what I was saying and make arguments that don't address it. Never mind that some of those micro-rebuttals aren't even correct.
I did address the actual point - see Maths textbooks
I'm not confused at all. I'm the one who knows the difference between Distribution and Multiplication.
You lied about there being no such thing as "the Distribution step" (Brackets), proven wrong by the textbooks
Textbooks talking about The Distributive Law totally addresses your lie that no such step exists.
You think Maths textbooks aren't correct?? 😂
I have said why this style of debate is bad in greater detail here: https://lemmy.world/post/39377635/21030374
But to make a pointless effort to address your actual point, yes distribution exists, no it is not a step in PE(MD)(AS). Again, you have not understood my point because you categorically fail to engage with any argument. I don't think you even understand what it means to do so. I will not respond further to either thread.
Which I debunked here
So... you're saying the "P" step in PEMDAS isn't a step in PEMDAS?? This is hilarious given you were just talking about contradictions 😂
Maybe because saying the "P" step in PEMDAS isn't a step in PEMDAS makes no sense at all 😂
No, I comprehensively debunked all of your points and deflections. 😂
says person who keeps avoiding the textbook screenshots and worked examples proving them wrong
Yay! Don't let the door hit you on the way out 😂
Parentheses means evaluating the things inside the parentheses you nimrod
Only if you're still in Elementary school. How old are you anyway? Here's a high school Algebra book, you know, after students have been taught The Distributive Law...
Treat
a + b/c + dasa + b/(c + d)I can almost understand, I was guilty of doing that in school with multiplication, but auto-parenthesising the first part is really crazy take, imoThat's a really odd way to parse it.
No don't. That rule was changed more than 130 years ago. a+b/c+d=a+(b/c)+d, Division before Addition
Yes they do, because not every division is a fraction
https://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/order5.pdf
I already said he was wrong about that. Quoting him saying it doesn't change that he's wrong about it
Take it up with Berkeley then.
What for? You're only the second person ever to have quoted him. You're not the first person to refuse to look in Maths textbooks though 🙄
Take it up with Berkeley.
Says person refusing to look in Maths textbooks 😂
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 😂
Tell them, not me.
You're the one commenting without reading Maths textbooks
Go tell Berkeley I did that.
You can stop humoring this broken robot. Especially when the context is 'yeah I already said this textbook is wrong, but I am better than you because you need to read this textbook.'
They seem to believe that and on the 8th day God made the one true objective order of operations that all humans use and agree on.
Except for that time the definition of division changed 130 years ago. Which is not a rule! It's notation, or syntax, or possibly sometimes a rule. Whichever one lets them sneer hardest.
I tried explaining RPN to them a year ago. They still insist there's parentheses in it. Today they called it an "app."
Dogmatic patience vampire is still trying to bait me into further wasted effort.
Wowww. Insisting that they're good at math. I distinctly remember learning that RPN doesn't need parentheses in college.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation
But, you know, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Someone probably put that there who hasn't opened a math textbook.
Oh of course. The sky isn't blue unless that's written in a maths textbook.
And if you look up and see stars, it's still blue, because it's written in a maths textbook! Are you saying a teacher could be wrong?!, smug emoji, crying emoji, roll-eyes emoji?
What for? They don't care if you're Mathematically illiterate