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 🙄
- Posts
- 26
- Comments
- 418
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 26
- Comments
- 418
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
I don’t think you understand mathematics above the 7th-grade level you brag about teaching
I don't think you understand any of it, not even Year 7
No bona fides will excuse how you’ve acted; you have to be better
says person who refuses to look in Maths textbooks
RPN does not have parentheses
in the foreground. In the background it does or it would give wrong answers. You understand that apps can do things that you don't see, right??
but different
Only the notation is different, the rules are the same
they deserve to know exactly how small-minded and stubborn you are
says the person who refuses to look in Maths textbooks 😂
as if they define knowledge
Textbooks do indeed define the notation and rules. 1+1=2 is defined as the notation to use to show that I had 1 thing and now I have 2 things
your own visible failure to teach anyone anything
says person ignoring all the people who actually did learn from me. That would be the people who are open to being wrong about how they thought it was done
Nobody’s walking away from these interactions like ‘oh thanks, good to know, that’s perfectly clear now.’
Yes they are! 😂
you’re assigning Buddha nature to parentheses
No, just literal textbook definition, which you refuse to look at 😂
1 2 + 3 * is not an equation with parentheses
So the app adds them in the background. Do you think apps don't know how many "a" you're talking about if you don't write 1a? Guess what, it knows in the background that a=1a, and that the 1 in 1-2-3 is +1, etc. Not typing them in doesn't mean they aren't being added
The first time I explained this to you, you had never heard of it.
yet again you seem to have me confused with someone else. I have no idea what you're talking about
You are a
Maths teacher
Trying to ‘no u’ about your absence of self-awareness does not work
says person who refuses to look in Maths textbooks
because you didn’t predict me
gaslighters gonna gaslight - there's nothing unpredictable about that
What you’re doing is
teaching the rules of Maths
If this is how you teach children, it’s enforced learning by rote
No it isn't, because they, having seen it also in the textbook, understand how it works
their understanding of even basic mathematics is permanently
improved, because they don't sit there going "Nah nah nah, nah nah nah, I'm not listening and not looking in the textbook!" 😂
The rules are socially agreed upon
Nope! Universal laws.
They are not a mathematical truth.
Yes they are! 😂
There is nothing about the order of multiple different operators in the definition of the operators themselves
That's exactly where it is. 2x3 is defined as 2+2+2, therefore if you don't do Multiplication before Addition you get wrong answers
you can order those however you like.
No you can't! 😂 2+3x4=5x4=20, Oops! WRONG ANSWER 😂
All that matters is just what calculation it is that you’re after
And if you want the right answer then you have to obey the order of operations rules
Yeah, but even worse, you’re just talking about schools
I'm talking about anyone at all in the U.S. is allowed to teach Maths without any Maths qualifications
You forgot about all the kids being home schooled
That happens in other countries too, and yet it's the U.S. which has been sliding down the world rankings for more than a decade, the country that doesn't require Maths teachers to have Maths qualifications.
Also, it’s kinda obvious the rules of math aren’t different in the US
That's right, as proven by U.S. Maths textbooks
If people don’t know how to use math properly, the issue clearly is the education and not math itself
Partly right. there's also people who just outright forgot the rules.
only one valid notation
Only one valid set of rules you mean. Notation varies by country
I warned folks about your cocksure confusion of notation and rules
says person who is confused about the difference between notation and rules 😂
You’re so confused about notation versus rules
Nope! That's you
RPN must have parentheses, somewhere, somehow, because they’re in the One True
Rules There you go confusing notation with rules again
I don’t think you understand being wrong, as a concept
says person who refuses to look in Maths textbooks 😂
Your brain slides right off it and circles back to a sequence of words that lets you be smug
And here you are writing a bunch of words and no Maths textbooks 😂
Nope, that’s wrong
You think Maths textbooks are wrong?? 😂
See https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=10%2F2%282%2B3%29 for reference
See Maths textbooks for reference 😂
Probably the part where you said how we write expressions is different from the underlying maths
Yep, the underlying Maths is the same everywhere, because the rules are universal, but different countries have different notations, it's still the same Maths
Because words mean things
And you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between "notation" and "rules"
Post picture declaiming brackets as a multiplication symbol,
What do you think the "B" step in BEDMAS is for?? 😂
proceeds to solve the problem to the exact same solution using distributive law to
Distribute the coefficient over the terms inside the brackets
Fucking genius
Says someone who can't tell the difference between Distributing, 2(1+3)=(2+6), and Multiplication, 2x(1+3)=2x4, 1/(2+6)=(1/8), 1/2x4=2
In mathematics, a product is the result of multiplication,
or Factoristion, ab+ac=a(b+c) <== a Product of a and (b+c)
I mean, I don’t like to argue about this
And yet here you are arguing with someone who is and is a Maths teacher
there is an implied multiplication there.
Nope! It's a Term/Product. There's no such thing as "implied multiplication" - you won't find it in any Maths textbook
Which you said changed 130 years ago
The definition of Division changed more than 130 years ago. a+b/c+d originally meant (a+b)/(c+d), but that limited you to one division per expression, so they changed the definition to be a+b/c+d=a+(b/c)+d, which brought it into line with all the other operators - the underlying Maths never changed, just the way we write expressions did
isn't a Maths textbook
In mathematics and computer programming, the order of operations is a collection of conventions
and rules 🙄 Haven't even got past the first sentence you quoted and it's already wrong
These conventions
Rules
but some programming languages and calculators
May disobey the rules and give wrong answers, like Texas Instruments calculators
With math, you can invent your own notation if you like
Yep, but you cannot invent your own rules 🙄
This is done often.
No it isn't.
And if it makes sense, you can also change the order of operation
No you can't, or you get wrong answers, like Texas Instruments calculators
The notation you learn in school is just a common one, but other notations are equally valid and can be useful
But the rules are universal. You seem to be confusing notation with the rules
Therefore this kind of question is not a pure math question
Yes it is
what kind of conventions or notations people want to use
We can see for ourselves quite clearly what notation they have used. There's no mystery or debate about it
The context is what allows the math question to have a single answer
The rules of Maths is what gives it a single answer - that's what they're for! 😂
The rules of math itself are much more fundamental and they don’t care about how people decided to write formulas down.
Yep, one of which is The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac).
Sorry, your realm does not extend into English
Sorry, it most definitely does when it comes to how English is used in Maths
It’s tangential to mathematics, but it isn’t mathematics
The way we say Mathematical things is 100% Maths
There’s absolutely nothing you can improve on?
I can improve some badly written textbooks. Probably every Maths teacher can.
Has a teacher ever been wrong (or just uninformed) about a topic in a subject they teach?
Yes, ones who haven't looked in the textbook which seems to be the case with a lot of unqualified U.S. Maths teachers
Does every English teacher know the content of every book?
Probably the content of every book they teach 🙄
No one knows everything about a subject
Teachers do. It comes from teaching the same thing year after year after year
Anyway, this isn’t your subject!
Yes it is! 😂
This is English, not math
It's Mathematical English
Do you see any formulas, proofs, or equations in these comments?
Do you see words in Maths textbooks? And the definitions of them? 🙄
What don’t you get?
Why you keep insisting that Maths textbooks are wrong
It being in an algebra textbook does not limit it to the realm of algebra
And NOT being in any arithmetic book means it's not part of Arithmetic 🙄
Numbers are in that textbook too
Yep, both Arithmetic and Algebra, as opposed to a(b+c) which is only in Algebra books.
If I’m wrong, I’d love to see the citation
Says person who can't cite any Arithmetic books it's in 🙄
Anyway, unless you provide that proof at the end there
Already gave it in the previous post... which you didn't look at 🙄
Because division is multiplication
No it isn't.
and subtraction is addition
And you still have to do both
2/2 is the same as 2*½
They're equal in value, they're not the same
2-2 is the same as 2+(-2)
You got that the wrong way around. Brackets have only been used in Maths for a few centuries now
Well, as I already said multiple times: Division = Multiplication
And you were wrong every time you said it.
therefore they would be doing them together
Not if you left them out of the mnemonic and they didn't know when to do them
I’m a software developer
So am I
adding extra parenthesis often adds clarity
Everyone I've seen add Brackets to it has done so in the WRONG place and given WRONG answers. Again this is an issue of programmers not checking the rules of Maths
that do not apply to what I’m talking about
The rules of Maths always apply to all Maths
You know they've rejected corrections by actual Maths Professors right? Just look for Rick Norwood in the talk section. Everyone who knows Maths knows Wikipedia is wrong, and looks in the right place to begin with - Maths textbooks