Yeah sure
A “teacher” who doesn’t know that all lessons are simplifications that get corrected at a higher level, and confidentiality refers to children’s textbook as an infallible source of college level information.
A “teacher” incapable of differentiating between rules of a convention and the laws of mathematics.
A “teacher” incapable of looking up information on notations of their own specialization, and synthesizing it into coherent response.
Don’t bother mate. Even if you corner them on something, they absolutely will not budge.
I like many others brought up calculators and how common basic calculators only evaluate from left to right. They contend that this is not true and that calculators have always been able to obey order of operations. I even linked the manuals of twodifferent calculators which both had this operation.
He asserted (without evidence) that the first does not operate in this way (even though the manual says that you must re-order some expressions so that bracketed sub-expressions come first). He then characterised the second as a “chain calculator” for “niche purposes”. So he admits it works left-to-right, but still will not admit that he was wrong about his claim.
This calculator thing is not central to the discussion on order of operations, but it goes to show: you will not convince him of anything no matter what the evidence is.
By the way, after reading a few of his comments, I believe I can summarise his whackadoodle understanding if you want to continue tilting at windmills: he fundamentally cannot separate mathematics from the notation. Thus he distinguishes many things which are the same but which are written differently.
He calls a×b multiplication and ab a product. These are, of course, the exact same thing. Within a mathematical expression, the implicit multiplication in ab can, by some conventions, have a higher precedence than does the explicit multiplication in a×b, and he has taken that to mean that they are fundamentally different.
He thinks that a(b+c)=ab+bc is something to do with notation, not a fundamental relationship between multiplication and addition. (This is not a difference for him though). This he calls the “distributive law” which he distinguishes from the “distributive property” (I will say that no author would distinguish those two terms, because they’re just too easily confused. And many authors explicitly say that one is also known as the other). He says that a×(b+c) = ab + bc is an instance of the “distributive property”.
A “teacher” who doesn’t know that all lessons are simplifications that get corrected at a higher level,
As opposed to a Maths teacher who knows there are no corrections made at a higher level. Go ahead and look for a Maths textbook which includes one of these mysterious “corrections” that you refer to - I’ll wait 😂
refers to children’s textbook as an infallible source of college level information
A high school Maths textbook most certainly is an infallible source of “college level” information, given it contains the exact same rules 😂
A “teacher” incapable of differentiating between rules of a convention and the laws of mathematics
Well, that’s you! 😂 The one who quoted Wikipedia and not a Maths textbook 😂
A “teacher” incapable of looking up information on notations of their own specialization
Man, this whole post has been embarrassing for you. Oof.
I can’t help but notice youve once again failed to address prefix and postfix notations.
And that you’ve not actually made any argument other than “nuh uh”
Not to mention the other threads you’ve been in. Yikes.
Your argument you haven’t made is backed up by math textbooks you haven’t provided written for children.
What is it that you want addressed?
How can that specific order of operations be a law of mathematics if it only applies to infix notation, and not prefix or postfix notations? Laws of mathematics are universal across notations.
Show me a textbook that discusses other notations and also says that order of operations is a law of mathematics.
You don’t have it, and you also aren’t a maths teacher, or a teacher at all. Just because you say it a lot doesn’t make it true.
isn’t a Maths textbook 🙄 far out, did you learn English from Wikipedia too? You sure seem to have trouble understanding the words Maths textbook
The site that you just quoted which is proven wrong by Maths textbooks, THAT Wikipedia?? 🤣🤣🤣
Umm, they do need the rules! 😂
They don’t, they apply to all notations 🙄
I love how confident you are about something you clearly have no knowledge of.
Adorable.
Well, you made a good effort. At least if we’re judging by word count.
says person confidently proving they have no knowledge of it to a Maths teacher 🤣
from Maths textbooks, which for you still stands at 0
To a “maths teacher”
Yeah sure
A “teacher” who doesn’t know that all lessons are simplifications that get corrected at a higher level, and confidentiality refers to children’s textbook as an infallible source of college level information.
A “teacher” incapable of differentiating between rules of a convention and the laws of mathematics.
A “teacher” incapable of looking up information on notations of their own specialization, and synthesizing it into coherent response.
Uh huh, sounds totally legit
Don’t bother mate. Even if you corner them on something, they absolutely will not budge.
I like many others brought up calculators and how common basic calculators only evaluate from left to right. They contend that this is not true and that calculators have always been able to obey order of operations. I even linked the manuals of two different calculators which both had this operation.
He asserted (without evidence) that the first does not operate in this way (even though the manual says that you must re-order some expressions so that bracketed sub-expressions come first). He then characterised the second as a “chain calculator” for “niche purposes”. So he admits it works left-to-right, but still will not admit that he was wrong about his claim.
This calculator thing is not central to the discussion on order of operations, but it goes to show: you will not convince him of anything no matter what the evidence is.
By the way, after reading a few of his comments, I believe I can summarise his whackadoodle understanding if you want to continue tilting at windmills: he fundamentally cannot separate mathematics from the notation. Thus he distinguishes many things which are the same but which are written differently.
As opposed to a Maths teacher who knows there are no corrections made at a higher level. Go ahead and look for a Maths textbook which includes one of these mysterious “corrections” that you refer to - I’ll wait 😂
A high school Maths textbook most certainly is an infallible source of “college level” information, given it contains the exact same rules 😂
Well, that’s you! 😂 The one who quoted Wikipedia and not a Maths textbook 😂
You again 😂 Wikipedia isn’t a Maths textbook
Man, this whole post has been embarrassing for you. Oof.
I can’t help but notice youve once again failed to address prefix and postfix notations.
And that you’ve not actually made any argument other than “nuh uh”
Not to mention the other threads you’ve been in. Yikes.
We can all tell you’re not a maths teacher.
Nope. I’m the only one who has backed up what they’ve said with Maths textbooks 🙄
What is it that you want addressed?
Backed up by Maths textbooks 🙄
Says person who actually isn’t a Maths teacher, hence no textbooks 😂
Your argument you haven’t made is backed up by math textbooks you haven’t provided written for children.
How can that specific order of operations be a law of mathematics if it only applies to infix notation, and not prefix or postfix notations? Laws of mathematics are universal across notations.
Show me a textbook that discusses other notations and also says that order of operations is a law of mathematics.
You don’t have it, and you also aren’t a maths teacher, or a teacher at all. Just because you say it a lot doesn’t make it true.