All mathematical proofs can be written in that form, otherwise they are not proofs
says person confirming he doesn't know much about Mathematical proofs 🙄
All kinds of proof are merely special cases of the general kind I told you about
No they're not, and you even admitted at the time that it had limitations 🙄
You didn’t know this?? Yeesh
Yes, I knew you only knew about one kind of proof, hence why I told you to go back to high school and re-learn all the other types that we teach to students
I’ve given you the definition of a proof before
You gave the defintion of one kind of proof. I'll take that as an admission then that you can't fault any of my proofs, since you can't point out anything wrong with any of them, only that they don't use the only proof method you know of, having forgotten the other proof methods that were taught to you in high school 🤣🤣🤣
if you can’t work out why what you wrote doesn’t match
I already know why it doesn't match, that doesn't make it not a proof, DUUUUHHH!!! 🤣🤣🤣 You need to go back to high school and learn about the other methods of proof that we use. You only seem to know the one you use in your little bubble.
you just can’t do maths.
Says person who only knows of ONE way to prove anything in Maths! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 🤣🤣🤣
Taken as an admission that I have indeed proved my points then, as I already knew was the case.
That’s ok, as Barbie taught us “math is hard!”
Is THAT why you only know ONE method of proof - you learnt from Barbie??? 🤣🤣🤣
Dude, I don’t care that you asked me to read more
I'll take that as an admission of being bad faith the whole time then, exactly as I said.
If you send a screenshot that doesn’t contain a word and then can’t admit that this is true
says person who was sent a screenshot of how their claim about the calculator order of operations is wrong and can't admit it 🙄
then can’t admit that this is true
You need remedial reading classes as well dude.
can’t about that you denied all of this wrongly
That's quite a word salad. You wanna try that again and make sense this time?
we’re not at a point where me reading more is in my interests
Yet again admitting you were bad faith the whole time 🙄
it will not get us to a point where we can have a discussion on even terms.
and it never will since you keep refusing to read anything. You expect me to paste the whole textbook into here??? 🙄 Dude, you are the worst bad faith person I have ever come across.
show me that it’s worth it,
Go back and read every textbook reference I have already posted, you know, those things you keep stubbornly ignoring in every single reply.
If you want a discussion
I don't care. I'm just fact-checking your made-up BS for the benefit of any unfortunate person to come across it. If you had wanted a discussion, then you would have discussed it with me, something which you have so far refused to do.
that there is a chance that I could convince you of even the smallest thing
There isn't, because you're contradicting what every Maths teacher and author already knows. 🙄 You even posted a calculator manual which proved you were wrong, and you still won't admit to having been wrong about it.
admit that you made an error
says person who still can't point out a single error that I have made ever 🙄
talk about what you actually want to talk about
I already posted all the proof, you just keep ignoring it. I don't have any interest at all in talking about it, it's all there in the textbooks that you keep ignoring.
I am capable of admitting a mistake, sorry but I already did so at the bottom of this comment:
Umm, what??? I don't see any admission of anything. Why is it that none of you gaslighters know how to take screenshots of anything?
I am capable of admitting a mistake, sorry but I already did so at the bottom of this comment:
BTW given your admission of not reading my reply to that one, you were quoting a 1912 textbook, not, you know, a 1965 or later textbook 🙄
And yet you were unable to reply with a proof. So sad
Says person unable to point out in what way it wasn't a proof, so sad 🤣🤣🤣
That’s some awful impressive goalpost shifting
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Says person refusing to acknowledge that it's in textbooks the difference between conventions and rules 🤣🤣🤣
Gold medal mental gymnastics winner
Yep, I know you are. That's why you had to post known to be wrong blogs, because you couldn't find any textbooks that agree with you 🤣🤣🤣
And here you are, still unable to explain why prefix and postfix notation don’t have an operator precedence.
Speaking of goalpost shifting - what happened to they don't have rules?? THAT was your point before, and now you have moved the goalposts when I pointed out that the blog was wrong 🤣🤣🤣
I’m still waiting
says person who has still not posted any textbook at all with anything at all that agrees with them, to someone who has posted multiple textbooks that prove you are wrong, and now you are deflecting 🤣🤣🤣🤣
They literally don’t
they literally *do., That's why the rules get mentioned once at the start of the blog - it's the same rules duuuhhh!!! 🤣🤣🤣
I defy you to show me a single source that tells you that prefix or postfix notation use PEDMAS.
PEMDAS isn't the rules, it's a convention
I’ll even take Quora answers
I won't take anything but textbooks, and you've still come up with none
I’ll even take a reputable source talking about prefix/postfix that doesnt bring up how order of operations isn’t required for those notations.
That's exactly what the blog you posted does. I knew you hadn't read it! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 🤣🤣🤣 I'll take that as an admission of being wrong then
No, you’ve show a screenshot from a random PDF
of a Maths textbook, with the name of the textbook in the top left, and the page number also in the top left. 🤣🤣🤣
Infix notation needs extra information to make the order of evaluation of the operators clear:
rules built into the language about operator precedence and associativity
Yep, says nothing about operator precedence being tied to the notation, exactly as I just said, so that's a fail from you then
But then you go on to say something to the effect of “anyone who knows the rules can the extra information”
derive the rules is what I said liar. The only thing you need to know is the definition of the operators, everything else follows logically from there.
Which is both unsubstantiated given the long history of not having PEDMAS
The order of operations rules are way older than PEMDAS. It even says it in one of the blogs you posted that PEMDAS is quite recent, again showing you didn't actually read any of it. 🙄
No, you’ve show a screenshot from a random PDF
Nothing random about it. The name of the textbook is in the top left. Go ahead and search for it and let me know what you find. I'll wait 🤣🤣🤣
What math textbook and what edition is it?
So, you're telling me you don't know how to look at the name of the PDF and search for it?? 🤣🤣🤣 I can tell you now it's the #1 hit on Google
The fact you think that factorization has to do with order of operations is shocking
says person revealing they don't know anything about order of operations 🤣🤣🤣 Make sure you let all the textbook authors know as well 🤣🤣🤣
Yes the multiplication is done first
No, Brackets are done first.
The law is about converting between a sum of a common product and a product of sums
Nope. That's the Distributive Property, and yes indeed, the Property has nothing to do with order of operations, but the Distributive Law has everything to do with order of operations.
No matter how you write them, it will always be about those things,
The Property will, the Law isn't
so the multiplication always happens first.
No, Brackets are always done first
It’s crazy that you’re not able to distinguish between mathematical concepts and the notation we use to describe them
says person who doesn't even know the difference between a Property and a Law, and, as far as I can tell, have never even heard of The Distributive Law, given they keep talking about the Property
But putting that aside, that’s not a proof of PEDMAS.
Right, it's a proof of the order of operations rules for Brackets 🙄
If PEDMAS is an actual law
It isn't, it's a convention
There are proofs for 1+1
It's true by definition. There's nothing complex about it. Just like ab=(axb) is true by definition
if PEDMAS is a law
It isn't, it's a convention. Not sure how many times you need to be told that 🙄
or an textbook snippet
You mean like textbook snippets stating that The Distributive Law is the reverse operation to Factorising?? See above 🤣🤣🤣
What I said was
After I had repeatedly said read more,, but you refused to, Mr. I'm only pretending to be good faith, so welcome to the embarrassment you suffered from not doing what I said 🙄
Then you replied with different screenshots
From the same page, the page you refused to read 🙄 Again, welcome to an embarrassment of your own making. That'll teach you that actual good faith people will read more 🙄
When I pointed that out, you said “no”
...same page, a point you are still stubbornly refusing to acknowledge. Just look at the fact that you left it out of what you were quoting! 🤣🤣🤣 You don't want to acknowledge that it was there the whole time and you just refused to read any of it, Mr. "Good faith" 🤣🤣🤣
You’re referring to other ways in which you’re wrong
Nope, you, that's why you are still refusing to reply to them, pretend like you never saw the proof that you were wrong 🤣🤣🤣 Go ahead, reply to them, tell me where I'm supposedly wrong, according to you. I'll wait, ready with textbooks to prove you wrong, again 🤣🤣🤣
You could admit you used different screenshots
says Mr. Poor comprehension, as I already pointed out, but you are also not replying to that to also not admit anything of your own fault 🤣🤣🤣
you could admit that saying “no, same page”
And you could admit to how many times I told you to read more, but you stubbornly refused, hence the current embarrassment you find yourself in. I shouldn't have needed to even post any more screenshots at all, Mr. "Good faith" 🤣🤣🤣 But here we are Mr. bad faith
you could admit that, indeed, the word “multiplication” never appeared in those first screenshots
And you could admit that you never read anything at all from the textbook, and were just belligerently making up arguments based on what you saw in the screenshots, Mr. bad faith. Welcome to what happens when you refuse to engage in good faith arguments.
Go on, cough up literally one thing
Let's start with you were wrong about the first calculator evaluating left to right
I did it already, as a show of good will, you can do it too!
No you haven't! You haven't admitted to anything
Has anyone tried TextTransform with a Button on Android? I originally tried all sorts of things to get my Android buttons to be lower-case, and nothing worked, it was always all-caps regardless of the original case, because "Material design on Android", 🙄 and I ended up giving up on it. Would love to try this out but I've recently reinstalled and haven't finished yet, so I haven't got anything ready to go to try it out and see if it works with Android Buttons.
Our friend doesn’t know what a mathematical proof is,
says person who doesn't know enough about Maths to prove the order of operations rules, which literally anyone can do for themselves if they know all the operator and grouping symbols definitions 🤣🤣🤣
will instead try to give you an example in which he posits a real-world calculation, writes down an arithmetic expression for it according to one convention, interprets it with another, gets a different answer, and tells you this is “proof” that it’s wrong
I have no idea who you're talking about, but it ain't me! 😂
writes down an arithmetic expression for it according to
the definitions of the operators 🙄
When I explained to him
was precisely nothing
how you could write down the expression according to a different convention, then interpret it with the same convention and get the same answer, he just denied, denied, denied
What you mean is I actually proved you wrong about "different conventions" (noted you still don't know the difference between conventions and rules), but you're pretending it never happened 🙄
A claim entirely unsupported by the textbook example you provided
says person who pointed out to begin with it was talking about conventions. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I even underlined it for you. Ok, then, tell me which convention exactly they are talking about if it isn't left to right 😂
Nowhere does it say that one is a convention
It quite clearly states that left to right is a convention 🙄
but not the other
"the other" wasn't even the subject at hand. 🙄 Here you go then...
it only says that removing brackets changes the meaning in some situations, which is fully within the scope of a convention
But not within the scope of rules 🙄
There you go again, just admitting you don’t know what postfix and prefix notations are.
There you go again not being able to say what the RULES for them are! 🤣🤣🤣 I admitted nothing of the kind by the way. I already told you 3 times they obey the same rules 🙄
here is a great free article from Colorado State university
It's pretty rubbish actually - finding a blog post by someone as ill-informed as you doesn't make it "great". Note that I always cite Maths textbooks and thus have no need to ever quote blog posts? 😂
Note how it says the rules about operator precedence are for the notation
Because (sigh) the same rules apply to all notations 🙄
which itself is a convention, as all notations are
Yep, and are separate to the rules, which are the same for all notations
Note how it says the rules about operator precedence are for the notation
Nope. Doesn't say that anywhere. Go ahead and screenshot the part which you think says that. I'll wait
how prefix and postfix don’t need those rules
Doesn't say that either. 🙄 Again, provide a screenshot of where you think it says that
BTW this is completely wrong...
"Infix notation needs extra information to make the order of evaluation of the operators clear" - Anyone who knows the definitions of the operators and grouping symbols is able to derive the rules for themselves, no need for any "extra information" 🙄
"For example, the usual rules for associativity say that we perform operations from left to right" - The thing we just established is a convention, not rules 🙄
"so the multiplication by A is assumed to come before the division by D" - Which we've already established can be done in any order 🙄
How embarrassing for you
No, you actually. You know, the person who can't find a single textbook that agrees with them 😂
Here are some more materials
NONE of which were Maths textbooks, NOR Maths teachers 😂
A post by Berkley university about popular ambiguous equations
None of which are actually ambiguous. He should've looked in a Maths textbook before writing it 😂
"the 48/2(9+3) question" - 48/2(9+3)=48/(2x9+2x3), per The Distributive Law, as found in Maths textbooks 😂
A published paper from Berkley that has been cited, with much stronger language on the matter
Did you even read it?? Dude doesn't even know the definition of Terms, ab=(axb) 🤣🤣🤣
Here is an article from the university of Melbourne
"Without an agreed upon order" - Ummm, we have proven rules, which literally anyone can prove to themselves 😂
Article from the university of utah
"There is no mathematical reason for the convention" - There are reasons for all the conventions - talk about admitting right at the start that you don't know much about Maths 🙄
A howstuffworks article on order of operations that explains it
It only explains the mnemonics actually, not why the rules are what they are. 🙄
Did you read it?? 🤣🤣🤣
"The order of operations — as Americans know it today — was probably formalized in either the late 18th century" - Nope! Way older than that 🙄
doesn’t have the pedigree of a university, but still clearly explained
It actually did a better job than all of the university blogs you posted! 🤣🤣🤣
Plus dozens of Quora answers, articles from online academies and learning centers, that I figured you’d just dismiss.
Because not Maths textbooks, duuuuhhhh 🤣🤣🤣
But to top it all off, if this was truely a law of mathematics
Which it is as per Maths textbooks 🤣🤣🤣
then show me a proof, theorem, or even a mathematical conjecture, about order of operations.
The proof is it's the reverse operation to Factorising, thus must be done first 🙄
But since you hate Maths textbooks, go ahead and search for "reverse operation of distributive law" and let me know what you find. I'll wait 🤣🤣🤣
you said “no, same page”
Yes, me, the person who urged you repeatedly to read more so that you could've avoided this whole embarrassment to begin with, and thus gave you yet another chance to read what it said, but you were too stubborn, and so here we are, you being embarrassed because you refused to read one page of a textbook 🙄
you couldn’t even do that
says person who has admitted to nothing ever. 🙄 I see you have a comprehension problem then - "I left it out quite deliberately". Not sure how you think it magically appeared in the same screenshot 😂
I’m not trying to further explain why you’re wrong when
you can't, because I'm not 🙄
you are so stubborn that you can’t admit that I was right
says person who is too stubborn to admit that I was right about...
and also hasn't been right about anything yet 😂
I said that the word “multiplication” didn’t appear in a screenshot
No you didn't. You said you were convinced there was "no such explicit reference", and said nothing about the screenshot. Should've read the textbook, like I kept telling you 🙄
Thanks for demonstrating it even better than you had before!
What you've demonstrated is...
The screenshot you started off with is a crop of the one you’re now talking about, so yes, different screenshots
Same page. you having trouble finding page 23, or you didn't even look for it? BTW I left it out quite deliberately and asked you what you would call it, and you didn't answer, then claimed that "they" (the textbook authors I presume) "they are certainly not saying explicitly that ab is not a multiplication or that a multiplication is different from a product, are they", and yes, they most certainly are saying that, which you would know if you had read the textbook. 🙄 You, the person who only read the underlined parts in screenshots, even though I repeatedly said to keep reading in order to avoid this embarrassment, then followed that up with "This level of reading comprehension is what got you here". Yep, this level of reading comprehension - you not reading the textbook, only the underlined parts of screenshots - is indeed what got you here 🙄
I’m curious - can you admit to that, even?
Can you admit that you're basing your whole argument on only reading what I underlined in screenshots and not, you know, actually reading the textbook? 🙄
so why didn't you then? Why did you ask for more screenshots instead of just reading more?
So you did read more and so then continued to lie about what the book said. Got it.
Nope! The first manual proved you were wrong about that, and you have still not admitted to being wrong about it. Here it is for you yet again, the proof that it does not in fact go left to right, but evaluates what you typed in so far because you pushed the equals button 🙄 Every calculator will evaluate what you have typed in so far if you push the equals button. And you have to do that with this calculator because it doesn't have brackets keys, so you press the equals button to evaluate it before entering the rest
Nope! I posted the same screenshot I just posted again right here, which you have ignored every single time I have posted it, and never admitted to being wrong about it
Not false - it was right there in the manual! 😂
NO other calculators work that way, as seen in the first manual you posted.
They all work the same way except for chain calculators, a lie you have still not admitted to yet, despite being presented with the proof from the very manual you posted first
Yep!
A 1912 textbook 🙄
Did I say no textbook ever has used juxtaposition. No, I did not. So now you are just twisting words to try and make them match your own narrative. Sorry if you thought Maths teachers go back and read every textbook ever written over the centuries, even though many of them are now outdated. No idea why you would think that anyone does that.
You did explicitly claim, that all basic calculators evaluate left to right, which was already proven false by the very first manual you posted(!) 🤣 and you still haven't admitted you were wrong. There's no ambiguity, you explicitly said all of them.
Nope, liar. I pointed out then, as I have just now, again, that it's a 1912 textbook. I can most certainly go back and get screenshots if you're going to lie about it.
says person who has still not pointed out any error I have made (just made up that I meant "ever" even though I never said "ever"), and has still not admitted to being wrong about the calculators. Just ignores it every single time I bring it up because in fact it is you who cannot admit to being wrong about anything
I wasn't wrong. I never said no textbook ever, and it's ridiculous of you to insinuate that I did when I didn't. Most sane people know that textbooks that are more than 100 years old (which it is) are out of date - the definition of Division had only recently changed for starters. meanwhile you, who did explicitly use the word all when talking about "non-scientific, non-graphing* calculators, hasn't admitted to being wrong about that, despite being disproven by the very first manual you posted 🤣🤣🤣
Nope, lying never feels good
says someone who doesn't know how to post screenshots
Ok, has to scroll past ads to find it 🙄
Yep, no admission of being wrong about anything in there, so thanks for providing the proof that you never admitted to being wrong about anything 🤣🤣🤣
Let me know if you want any online tutoring about how to take and post screenshots. It's not hard when you have facts to back you up.