SmartmanApps

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 3 months ago (26 children)

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 😂

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 3 months ago (132 children)

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.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (8 children)

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 🙄

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

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?? 😂

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

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

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 3 months ago (5 children)

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 🙄

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -3 points 3 months ago (7 children)

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 🙄

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -3 points 3 months ago

Go tell Berkeley I did that

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

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 3 months ago

I know. I was clowning

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

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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 🙄

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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 😂

view more: ‹ prev next ›