SmartmanApps

You have a masters but you can’t differentiate between notation and the concept it is trying to convey

By which you mean you mean you don't have a Masters and can't differentiate between notation and rules 🙄

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

You again 😂 Wikipedia isn't a Maths textbook

I love how confident you are about something you clearly have no knowledge of.

says person confidently proving they have no knowledge of it to a Maths teacher 🤣

At least if we’re judging by word count

from Maths textbooks, which for you still stands at 0

My dude sit in a university lecture for math majors

You know I have a Masters in Maths, right? 🤣

Your school books arent gospel

Proofs are, and these things are very easy to prove 🙄

My dude sit in a university lecture for math majors

You know I have a Masters in Maths, right? 🤣

Your school books arent gospel

Proofs are, and these things are very easy to prove 🙄

Wikipedia

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

You don’t trust Wikipedia?

The site that you just quoted which is proven wrong by Maths textbooks, THAT Wikipedia?? 🤣🤣🤣

you’ve yet to explain why notations like prefix and postfix dont need these “rules”.

Umm, they do need the rules! 😂

how could they only apply to certain notations?

They don't, they apply to all notations 🙄

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" 🙄

You have declined to admit to a simple error you made

Not me, must be you! 😂

that early calculators lacked a stack,

They didn't 🙄

that basic four function calculators all did and still do

Have a stack, yes. I have one and it quite happily says that 2+3x4=14, something it can't do without putting "2+" on the stack while it does the 3x4 first 🙄

There’s no point having a discussion with someone so stubborn that they can’t admit a single mistake.

says someone too stubborn to admit making a mistake 🙄

I’m not sure whether you’re trying to wind people up or just a bit dim

Neither. I'm the one doing fact-checks with actual, you know, facts, like my simple calculator having a stack and correctly evaluating 2+3x4=14. It's the one I had in Primary school. The one in the first manual works the exact same way

this conversation is like trying to explain something to a particularly stuck-up dog

So maybe start listening to what I've been trying to tell you then. 🙄 It's all there in textbooks, if you just decide to read more than 2 sentences out of them.

The real tragedy is that you claim to be out there teaching kids this overcomplicated and false drivel.

Facts, as per the syllabus and Maths textbooks. Again, you need to read more than 2 sentences to discover that 🙄

only if you show that you’re not just a troll.

says person who has thus far refused to read more than 2 sentences out of the textbook 🙄

You can do that by admitting that you were wrong to say that all calculators have stacks

I wasn't wrong 🙄 The first manual that was linked to proved it. If you don't press the +/= button before the multiply then it will put the first part on the stack and evaluate the multiplication first, something it doesn't do if you press the +/= first to make it evaluate what you have typed in so far. 🙄 Every calculator will evaluate what you have typed in so far if you press the equals button, as pointed out in the first manual

because I showed you two examples

The first of which had a stack 🙄 the second of which was a chain calculator, designed to work that way. You're the one being dishonest

you were wrong

No I wasn't

that this screenshot

Which is a 1912 textbook. It also calls Factorising "Collections", and The Distributive Law "The Law of Distribution", and Products "Multiplication". Guess what? The language has changed a little in the last 110 years 🙄

it’s from Advanced Algebra by J.V. Collins, pg 6

Yep, published in 1912

On page 3, the concept of juxtaposition is introduced

And we now call them Products. 🙄 You can see them being called that in Modern Algebra, which was published in 1965. In fact, in Lennes' infamous 1917 letter, he used the word Product (but didn't understand, as shown by his letter), so the language had already changed then

admitting to an error on your part

There was no error. The language has changed since 1912 🙄

you actually are capable of admitting error

Of course I am. Doesn't mean I'm going to "admit" to an error when there is none 🙄

Fuck where this started

I'll take that as an admission that you're wrong. Thanks for playing

P.S. show me where the squared is in...

you know, the actual topic, which you're trying to avoid because you know you are wrong

So when you sneer that rules and notation are different, you don’t know what those words mean

says the actual person who doesn't know what they mean 😂

when someone says ‘imagine a different notation,’ you literally can’t

Yes, you literally can't go rewriting all the rules of Maths that we've had for centuries just because you randomly want to do something different now that we've decided to add Brackets to it 😂 Your whole argument is based on pretending that all the rules of Maths were all written at the same time 🤣🤣🤣

Show me any textbook that gets the answers you insist on

Pick any of them which show a(b+c)=(ab+ac) 🙄

Yes we could

No you can't! 😂

it’s a theoretical different notation

In other words against the rules of Maths that we have, got it

does not break down, if you have to put add explicit brackets to 1/(ab)

But it does breakdown if you treat ab as axb 🙄

if you have to put add explicit brackets to 1/(ab)

We explicitly don't have to, because brackets not being needed around a single Term is another explicit rule of Maths, 🙄 being the way everything was written before we started using Brackets in Maths. We wrote things like aa/bb without brackets for many centuries. i.e. they were added on after we had already defined all these other rules centuries before

Mathematics does break down when you insist a(b)2 gets an a2 term

No it doesn't. If you meant ab², then you would just write ab². If you've written a(b)², then you mean (axb)²

for certain values of b

Got nothing to do with the values of b

It’s why you’ve had to invent exceptions to your made-up bullshit

says person still ignoring all these textbooks

pretend 2(8)2

There's no pretending, It's there in the textbooks

when simplified from 2(5+3)2 versus 2(8*1)2

You know it's called The Distributive Property of Multiplication over additon, right? And that there's no such thing as The Distributive Property of Multiplication over Multiplication, right? You're just rehashing your old rubbish now