this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
739 points (91.1% liked)
Science Memes
19737 readers
2473 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nope. bc is the product of b and c. bxc is Multiplication of the 2 Terms b and c.
Says person who clearly didn't read more than 2 sentences out of it 🙄
and why do you think that is? Do explain. We're all waiting 😂 Spoiler alert: if you had read more than 2 sentences you would know why
No it doesn't. it means bxc is Multiplication, and bc is the product 🙄 Again you would've already known this is you had read more than 2 sentences of the book.
No it isn't, and again you would already know this if you had read more than 2 sentences. If a=2 and b=3, then...
1/ab=1/(2x3)=1/6
1/axb=1/2x3=3/2
Nope, an actual rule of Maths. If you meant 1/axb, but wrote 1/ab, you've gonna get a different answer 🙄
says person who only read 2 sentences out of it 🙄
It sure is when the read the rest of the page 🙄
What don't you understand about only ab is the product of a and b?
Not me, must be you! 😂
Until all brackets have been removed. on the very next page. 🙄 See what happens when you read more than 2 sentences out of a textbook? Who would've thought you need to read more than 2 sentences! 😂
And yet, right there on Page 21, they Distribute in the last step of removing Brackets, 🙄 5(17)=85, and throughout the whole rest of the book they write Products in that form, a(b) (or just ab as the case may be).
Brackets aren't an operator, they are grouping symbols, and solving grouping symbols is done in the first 2 steps of order of operations, then we solve the operators.
3x6 isn't a Product, it's a Multiplication, done in the Multiplication step of order of operations.
It says you omit the multiplication sign if it's a Product, and 3x6 is not a Product. I'm not sure how many times you need to be told that 🙄
Nope, completely different giving different answers
1/3x(2+4)=1/3x6=6/3=2
1/3(2+4)=1/3(6)=1/18
Yep
Yes it is! 😂
Yes it is! 😂 Until all Brackets have been removed, which they can't be if you haven't Distributed yet. Again, last step of the working out...
Yes it is! 😂 Until all Brackets have been removed
Nope, it's Distribution, done in the Brackets step, before doing anything else, as per Page 21
Which, when you finish doing the brackets, is 8²
After you have finished the Brackets 🙄
Nope. Giving us 8²=64
Nope! If you write it at all, which you don't actually need to (the textbook never does), then you write (2x4)², per The Distributive Law, where you cannot remove the brackets if you haven't Distributed yet. There's no such rule as the one you just made up
You disobeyed The Distributive Law in the second case, and the fact that you got a different answer should've been a clue to you that you did it wrong 🙄
No, that would be your understanding is wrong, the person who only read 2 sentences 🙄 I'm not sure what you think the rest of the chapter is about.
Says person who only read 2 sentences out of it 🙄
Yep, ignoring all the parts that prove you are wrong 🙄
Exact same reference! 😂
You know Mathematicians tend to agree when something has been proven, right? 😂
Yep, read the whole chapter 🙄
Do you teach classes like this? "That's not a product, it's a multiplication" -- those are the same thing. Shouldn't you, as a teacher, be explaining the difference, if you say there is one? I'm starting to believe you don't think they're is one, but are just using words to be annoying. Or maybe you don't explain because you don't know.
You could argue that "product" refers to the result of the multiplication rather than the operation, but there's no sense in which the formula "a × b" does not refer to the result of multiplying a and b.
Of course, you don't bother to even make such an argument because either that would make it easier to see your trolling for what it is, or you're not actuality smart enough to understand the words you're using.
It's interesting, isn't it, that you never provide any reference to your textbooks to back up these strange interpretations. 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? It doesn't, does it? You're keen to cite textbooks any time you can, but here you can't. You complain that people don't read enough of the textbook, yet they read more than you ever refer to.
In the other thread I said I wouldn't continue unless you demonstrated your good faith by admitting to a simple verifiable fact that you got wrong. Here's another option: provide an actual textbook example where any of the disputed claims you make are explicitly made. For example, there should be some textbook somewhere which says that mathematics would not work with different orders of operations - you've never found a textbook which says anything like this, only things like "mathematicians have agreed" (and by the way, hilarious that you commit the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent on that one).
Likewise with your idea of what constitutes a term, where's your textbook which says that "a × b is not a term"? Where is the textbook that says 5(17) requires distribution? (All references you have given are that distribution relates multiplication and addition, but there's no addition) Where's your textbook which says "ab is a product, not multiplication"? Where's a citation saying "product is not the same as multiplication and here's how"? Because there is a textbook reference saying "ab means the same as a × b", so your mental contortions are not more authoritative.
Find any one of these - explicitly, not implicitly, (because your ability to interpret maths textbooks is poor) and we can have a productive discussion, otherwise we cannot.
My prediction: you'll present some implicit references and try to argue they mean what you want. In that case, my reply is already prepared 😁
Yep! And if you read more than 2 sentences out of the textbook you would know why 🙄
Says person who only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter 🙄
Yep, and it's right there in the textbook! 🙄
So you think if a=2 and b=3, then...
1/ab=1/(2x3)=1/6
1/axb=1/2x3=3/2
Are somehow the same answer?? 😂 Which one is it then? 1/6 or 3/2?? 😂
Yep by definition!
There's no sense in which it does refer to the result you mean. The result of axb is ab. If a=2, b=3, axb=ab. 2x3=6, axb=2x3, ab=6
Says someone revealing that they haven't read a word I've said 🙄
says someone who has just proven they haven't been reading them 🙄
Yes I did, and you only read 2 sentences out of it 😂
Read on dude, read on, like I have been telling you the whole time. Oh wait, that would prove you were wrong. Oh, I wonder why you haven't read it... 🙄
The page that you only read one sentence from 🙄
I already did and you only read 2 sentences out of it 🙄
says person who has repeatedly proven they've only read 2 sentences 🙄
And I pointed out that in fact you got it wrong, and Mr. Hypocrite has failed to admit it 🙄
Same one I already told you and you only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter
It's easy enough to prove yourself, like I did. Go ahead and try it out and let me know how you go.
No, I was able to prove it myself 🙄
Because it was proven 🙄
Same textbook that you only read 2 sentences from
It tells you tight there on the same page that you must remove all brackets, 🙄 which you also haven't admitted to being wrong about yet, surprise, surprise, surprise
Same one you only read 2 sentences from
And you stopped reading at that point didn't even finish the page, never mind the chapter 🙄 Just started making false claims (contradicted by same textbook) that "means" means "equals", instead of realising they have explicitly not said equals 🙄
Says person who made the mental contortion that "means" means "equals" instead of reading the rest of the page
says person who only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter 🙄
when you decide to read more than 2 sentences 🙄
Wrong, as usual
says person trying to argue that "means" means "equals" 🙄
"a X b is written ab." Modern Algebra: Structure And Method, page 36. It's only a different way of writing the exact same thing.
Every textbook ever written disagrees with how you think brackets work, and mathematics has not collapsed in on itself. We've seen your Mastodon posts lamenting how 'university people' all disagree with what you lie to teenagers about. All of them! Weird, right? What a bizarre coincidence. I'm not sure what would look different if you were just plain full of shit.
It's amazing that you think these are explicit references. Notice how the text never says "you MUST use the distributive law"? It always says some variation of "in order to simplify, you must..."?
No, you don't notice, because you're blind, and don't understand what distributivity actually is.
You also got me confused with someone else trying to explain in short words how you're wrong, but that won't be a problem now you demonstrated such abject failure to hold a productive discussion - bye.
"When a product involves a variable, it is customary to omit the symbol X of multiplication. Thus, 3 X n is written 3n and means three times n, and a X b is written ab and means a times b."
Illiterate fraud.
says person who thinks "means" and "equals" mean the same thing 😂
By all means, humiliate yourself by splitting that hair.
I'll take that as an admission that you're wrong then, given you can't defend your wrong interpretation of it (which you would know is wrong if you had read more than 1 paragraph of the book!) 😂
This is you admitting there's no difference. You insist they're not the same. How?
Not difficult, I already did in another post. If a=2 and b=3...
1/ab=1/(axb)=1/(2x3)=1/6
1/axb=1/2x3=3/2=1.5
That's convention for notation, not a distinction between a*b and ab both being the product of a and b.
You have to slap 1/ in front of things and pretend that's the subject, to avoid these textbooks telling you, ab means a*b. They are the same thing. They are one term.
Nope, still rules
says person who only read 2 sentences out of the book, the book which proves the statement wrong 😂
Nope, only ab is the product, and you would already know that if you had read more than 2 sentences 😂
"identically equal", which you claimed it means, means it will give the same answer regardless of what's put in front of it. You claimed it was identical, I proved it wasn't.
It kills you actually, but you didn't read any of the parts which prove you are wrong 🙄just cherry pick a couple of sentences out of a whole chapter about order of operations 🙄
Nope! If they were both 1 term then they would give the same answer 🙄
1/ab=1/(axb)=1/(2x3)=1/6
1/axb=1/2x3=3/2=1.5
Welcome to why axb is not listed as a Term on Page 37, which if you had read all the pages up until that point, you would understand why it's not 1 Term 🙄
'If a+b equals b+a, why is 1/a+b different from 1/b+a?'
ab means a*b.
That's why 1/ab=1/(a*b).
But we could just as easily say 1/ab = (1/a)*b, because that distinction is only convention.
None of which excuses your horseshit belief that a(b)^2^ occasionally means (ab)^2^.
Because they're not identically equal 🙄 Welcome to you almost getting the point
means, isn't equal
Nope, it's because ab==(axb) <== note the brackets duuuhhh!!! 😂
No you can't! 😂
Nope! An actual rule, as found not only in Maths textbooks (see above), but in all textbooks - Physics, Engineering, Chemistry, etc. - they all obey ab==(axb)
says person still ignoring all these textbooks
Yes we could, because it's a theoretical different notation. Mathematics itself does not break down, if you have to put add explicit brackets to 1/(ab).
Mathematics does break down when you insist a(b)^2^ gets an a^2^ term, for certain values of b. It's why you've had to invent exceptions to your made-up bullshit, and pretend 2(8)^2^ gets different answers when simplified from 2(5+3)^2^ versus 2(8*1)^2^.
No you can't! 😂
In other words against the rules of Maths that we have, got it
But it does breakdown if you treat ab as axb 🙄
We explicitly don't have to, because brackets not being needed around a single Term is another explicit rule of Maths, 🙄 being the way everything was written before we started using Brackets in Maths. We wrote things like aa/bb without brackets for many centuries. i.e. they were added on after we had already defined all these other rules centuries before
No it doesn't. If you meant ab², then you would just write ab². If you've written a(b)², then you mean (axb)²
Got nothing to do with the values of b
says person still ignoring all these textbooks
There's no pretending, It's there in the textbooks
You know it's called The Distributive Property of Multiplication over additon, right? And that there's no such thing as The Distributive Property of Multiplication over Multiplication, right? You're just rehashing your old rubbish now
Couldn't resist:
Damn, and I thought they were called "products" not "multiplications" 🤔🤔🤔
If you can find an explicit textbook example where writing a(b)² is said to be evaluated as (a×b)² then that's another way you can prove your good faith (When I say "explicit" I don't mean it must literally be that formula; the variables a and b could have different names, or could be constants written with numerals, and the exponent could be anything other than 1). Likewise, if you can find any explicit textbook example which specifically mentions an "exception" to the distributive law, that would demonstrate good faith.
I'm not saying that such an explicit example is the only way to demonstrate your claim, but I'm just trying to give you more opportunities to prove that you're not just a troll and that it's possible to have a productive discussion. You insist you're talking about mathematical rules that cannot be violated, so it should be no problem to find an explicit mention of them.
If you think this insistence on demonstrating your good faith is unfair, you should remember that you are saying that the practice of calculators, mathematical tools, programming languages and mathematical software are all wrong and that you are right, and that my interpretation of your own textbooks is wrong. While it's not impossible for many people to be wrong about something and for me to interpret something wrong, if you show no ability to admit error, or to admit that disagreement from competing authorities casts doubt on your claims, or to evince your controversial claims with explicit examples that are not subject to interpretational contortions, the likelihood is that you're not willing to ever see truth and there's no point arguing with such a person.
By the way, sorry for making multiple replies on the same point.
As my own show of good faith, I do see that one of your textbooks (Chrystal) has the convention that a number "carries with it" a + or -, which is suppressed in the case of a term-initial positive number. If you demonstrate it worth continuing the discussion, I'll explain why I think this is a bad convention and why the formal first-order language of arithmetic doesn't have this convention.
When shown a textbook that explicitly distinguishes 6(ab)^3^ meaning 6(ab)(ab)(ab) and (6ab)^3^ meaning (6ab)(6ab)(6ab), they accidentally got it right whilst sneering and inventing their sPeCiAl cAsE:
They can't even keep their horseshit straight when their inane pivots to division are directly addressed. Every response begins "nuh uh!" and backfills whatever needs to be true for you to be wrong and them to be smarterer.
They're just full of shit.
I haven't been able to follow the entirety of that conversation so I don't remember what exactly he said about combining (implicit) multiplication, brackets and powers.
I think their fundamental confusion is in thinking that the distributive law is something you must do instead of a property of multiplication that you can use to aid in the manipulation of algebraic expressions but don't have to. Folded into their inability to understand that some aspects of maths are custom and convention, whilst others are rules fundamental to the operation of the universe. Somewhere along the way he seems to think that distributivity is something to do with brackets instead of something to do with addition and multiplication - I really don't understand how that has happened!
I'm pursuing a tack where I'll see if I can get him to actually cop to any of his verifiable mistakes, or back up any of his whackadoodle claims with direct references. If he can't, I'm out - but I do like to give people an opportunity to demonstrate they're not trolling. The nice thing is that it doesn't really matter whether they're trolling or not - someone who is able to admit mistakes is someone worth trying to convince they've made a mistake, and someone who isn't is not. So if you can test the waters with a simple mistake, even if it's not central, you can establish whether there's any point persevering.
Tomorrow I'm expecting another wall of text responding to every single word except the ones where I ask for such an admission, and I'll have satisfied myself he's a lost cause. I'll try and watch out for his spam on future arithmetic-ragebait threads so I can help the effort to head him off though :P
BTW did you go on his mastodon profile? He's had a bee in his bonnet about this, and been pushing his wrong ideas of what the distributive law are, since 2023.
Oh yeah, had a laugh at some RPN guy saying, 'Hey you should check this thesis specifically about order of operations.'
This dipshit: "I already know what it'll be - a University person who's forgotten about Terms and The Distributive Law - they're ALL like that."
All of them! Wow! What a coincidence!
Isn't it fucking crazy how everyone in the world is wrong about this, and math still works?
So when you sneer that rules and notation are different, you don't know what those words mean.
Or you're so devoid of internality that when someone says 'imagine a different notation,' you literally can't.
Show me any textbook that gets the answers you insist on. Show me one textbook where a(b+c)^2^ squares a.
P.S. show me where the squared is in...
you know, the actual topic, which you're trying to avoid because you know you are wrong
Fuck where this started - you're here now, saying 2(8)^2^ is anything but 128. You're that wrong about basic fucking algebra, whilst sneering at everyone else.
Here's four textbooks across two centuries where a(b+c)^x^ is not (ac+bc)^x^.
I'll take that as an admission that you're wrong. Thanks for playing
says the actual person who doesn't know what they mean 😂
Yes, you literally can't go rewriting all the rules of Maths that we've had for centuries just because you randomly want to do something different now that we've decided to add Brackets to it 😂 Your whole argument is based on pretending that all the rules of Maths were all written at the same time 🤣🤣🤣
Pick any of them which show a(b+c)=(ab+ac) 🙄