Yeah, you clearly don’t even know what a convention is, and what are math conventions and math “rules” as you put it.
You’re wrong, and even a 2 minute Google search would show you that and explain why. I’m done being Google for you when you’re not willing to Google it yourself.
In mathematics and computer programming, the order of operations is a collection of conventions about which arithmetic operations to perform first in order to evaluate a given mathematical expression
What’s that? You don’t trust Wikipedia?
Ok, you’ve yet to explain why notations like prefix and postfix dont need these “rules”.
If they were rules of mathematics **itself** how could they only apply to certain notations?
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
Yeah, you clearly don’t even know what a convention is, and what are math conventions and math “rules” as you put it.
You’re wrong, and even a 2 minute Google search would show you that and explain why. I’m done being Google for you when you’re not willing to Google it yourself.
Says person who actually doesn’t know the difference, as per Maths textbooks
oh no! you better start contacting all the textbook publishers and tell them that all Maths textbooks are wrong 😂
Even a 2 minute Google search will bring up Maths textbooks which prove that Google is wrong 🙄
Maths teachers don’t use Google - that’s what Maths textbooks are for
says person who was unwilling to use Google to find Maths textbooks 🙄
Wikipedia
What’s that? You don’t trust Wikipedia?
Ok, you’ve yet to explain why notations like prefix and postfix dont need these “rules”.
If they were rules of mathematics **itself** how could they only apply to certain notations?
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