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 🙄
- Posts
- 26
- Comments
- 418
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 26
- Comments
- 418
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
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?
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 😂
That’s a very simplistic view of maths
The Distributive Law and Arithmetic is very simple.
It’s convention
Nope, a literal Law. See screenshot
Isn't a Maths textbook, and has many mistakes in it
Just because a definition of an operator contains another operator, does not require that operator to take precedence
Yes it does 😂
2+3x4=2+3+3+3+3=14 by definition of Multiplication
2+3x4=5x4=20 Oops! WRONG ANSWER 😂
As you pointed out, 2+34 could just as well be calculated to 54 and thus 20
No, I pointed out that it can't be calculated like that, you get a wrong answer, and you get a wrong answer because 3x4=3+3+3+3 by definition
There’s no mathematical contradiction there
Just a wrong answer and a right one. If I have 1 2 litre bottle of milk, and 4 3 litre bottles of milk, even young kids know how to count up how many litres I have. Go ahead and ask them what the correct answer is 🙄
Nothing broke
You got a wrong answer when you broke the rules of Maths. Spoiler alert: I don't have 20 litres of milk
You just get a different answer
A provably wrong answer 😂
This is all perfectly in line with how maths work
2+3x4=20 is not in line with how Maths works. 2+3+3+3+3 does not equal 20 😂
add(2, mult(3, 4)), for typical
rule
But it could just as well be mult(add(2, 3), 4), where addition takes precedence
And it gives you a wrong answer 🙄 I still don't have 20 litres of milk
And I hope you see how, in here, everything seems to work just fine
No, I see quite clearly that I have 14 litres of milk, not 20 litres of milk. Even a young kid can count up and tell you that
it just depends on how you rearrange things
Correctly or not
our operators is just convention
The notation is, the rules aren't
Something in between would be requiring parentheses around every operator, to enforce order
No it wouldn't. You know we've only been using brackets in Maths for 300 years, right? Order of operations is much older than that
Such as (2+(3*4))
Which is exactly how they did it before we started using Brackets in Maths 😂 2+3x4=2+3+3+3+3=14, not complicated.
Here is a distributive law lesson for grade 4
That's the Distributive Property actually. The dead giveaway is the multiply sign, as in "The Distributive Property of Multiplication over Addition". There's no Multiply sign in The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)
Here’s another, and another.
Also The Distributive Property. "The distributive law says that multiplying a number by a group of numbers added together is the same as doing each multiplication separately" - no, the Distributive Property says that.
These were the first results
Welcome to the problem with using the internet and not looking at Maths textbooks
It being used in an algebra course doesn’t mean it’s in the domain of algebra
It being taught in Algebra most certainly does mean it's in the domain of Algebra
Algebra is also used in calculus, but algebra isn’t the domain of calculus, correct?
It's all Algebra. You can't do Calculus if you haven't learnt Algebra yet, just like you can' do a(b+c) if you haven't learnt Algebra yet.
It’s algebra when it’s using variables
and the rules of Algebra, like a(b+c)=(ab+ac). Arithmetic doesn't have any rules that aren't in Algebra, but Algebra does have rules which aren't in Arithmetic.
and you’re solving for an equation
I can solve 1+1= without using Algebra
2(3+4) is arithmetic
Nope, it's Algebra
2(x+4)=0 is algebra
Yep, now substitute x=3 in 2(x+4) and tell me what you get 😂
the application of the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division to them
Yep. Notice how Distribution was not mentioned?? 😂
and formal manipulations
Yep, such as a(b+c)=(ab+ac)
rather than specific numbers
Soooo, a+b is Algebra, but 2a+3b+4 isn't Algebra, because it has specific numbers in it?? 😂
Note: Algebra includes the use of arithmetic
Yep, it sure does.
t being used in algebra does not mean it is part of algebra
NOT being used in Arithmetic means it's not part of Arithmetic. 🙄 You know we've only had Brackets in Maths for 300 years, and that Arithmetic is much older than that, right?
Gaslighters can't gaslight Maths teachers about Maths. You should know that by now
That you were going to ignore Maths textbooks? I called that too 😂
Nope. You never said I was going to prove you wrong
I've been doing the same thing I always do - proving you wrong with Maths textbooks 😂
The question is, why do you refuse to look in any?
You never should've commented at all gaslighter
says person in an admission of defeat