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 😁
Do you teach classes like this? “That’s not a product, it’s a multiplication”
Yep! And if you read more than 2 sentences out of the textbook you would know why 🙄
those are the same thing.
Says person who only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter 🙄
Shouldn’t you, as a teacher, be explaining the difference, if you say there is one?
Yep, and it’s right there in the textbook! 🙄
I’m starting to believe you don’t think they’re is one
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?? 😂
You could argue that “product” refers to the result of the multiplication rather than the operation
Yep by definition!
there’s no sense in which the formula “a × b” does not refer to the result of multiplying a and b
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
you don’t bother to even make such an argument
Says someone revealing that they haven’t read a word I’ve said 🙄
you’re not actuality smart enough to understand the words you’re using
says someone who has just proven they haven’t been reading them 🙄
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that you never provide any reference to your textbooks to back up these strange interpretations
Yes I did, and you only read 2 sentences out of it 😂
Where in your textbook does it say explicitly that ab is not a multiplication
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… 🙄
It doesn’t, does it?
The page that you only read one sentence from 🙄
You’re keen to cite textbooks any time you can, but here you can’t
I already did and you only read 2 sentences out of it 🙄
You complain that people don’t read enough of the textbook, yet they read more than you ever refer to
says person who has repeatedly proven they’ve only read 2 sentences 🙄
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
And I pointed out that in fact you got it wrong, and Mr. Hypocrite has failed to admit it 🙄
provide an actual textbook example where any of the disputed claims you make are explicitly made
Same one I already told you and you only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter
there should be some textbook somewhere which says that mathematics would not work with different orders of operations
It’s easy enough to prove yourself, like I did. Go ahead and try it out and let me know how you go.
you’ve never found a textbook which says anything like this
No, I was able to prove it myself 🙄
only things like “mathematicians have agreed”
Because it was proven 🙄
where’s your textbook which says that “a × b is not a term”?
Same textbook that you only read 2 sentences from
Where is the textbook that says 5(17) requires distribution?
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
Where’s your textbook which says “ab is a product, not multiplication”?
Same one you only read 2 sentences from
there is a textbook reference saying “ab means the same as a × b”,
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 🙄
so your mental contortions are not more authoritative
Says person who made the mental contortion that “means” means “equals” instead of reading the rest of the page
your ability to interpret maths textbooks is poor
says person who only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter 🙄
we can have a productive discussion
when you decide to read more than 2 sentences 🙄
My prediction: you’ll present some implicit references
Wrong, as usual
try to argue they mean what you want
says person trying to argue that “means” means “equals” 🙄
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.
There’s no sense in which it does refer to the result you mean.
“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.
Go ahead and try it out and let me know how you go.
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.
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” 🙄
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.
“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.