Sorry, mate, TLDR
I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong then
I skimmed through it, I’m glad you learned some new concepts
I’ve no idea whose comments you skimmed through, but clearly not mine. I’ve been saying the same thing from start to finish, and you eventually contradicted yourself 😂
you’re then trying to turn it around and pretend like I didn’t understand something
says someone trying to pretend he did 😂
You incompetent fraud, that’s a different person
That would be because you are replying to my reply to them and not my reply to you, which makes you the incompetent fraud 😂
It’s easy to lose track when literally everyone is calling out your bullshit
says someone who actually lost track and is replying to my reply to someone else 😂
Here’s you quoting a textbook that says to solve inside the brackets first, even without a mulitply sign.
In other words, The Distributive Law, as I’ve been saying all along, yes, and your point is?
Here’s you quoting a textbook that says you must do the opposite of that.
Nope! Says the exact same thing - Distribute BEFORE REMOVING BRACKETS which is exactly what the previous one did. I have no idea why you think they contradict each other 😂
And as a bonus, here’s you getting 2(3+5)2 wrong.
Nope! Getting it right, Brackets before exponents, as per the order of operations rules, found in Maths textbooks 😂
I am looking for how to politely contact your instance’s admins about your behavior.
Because there’s something wrong with fact checking?? 😂 Students usually appreciate finding out where they went wrong, but not you, obviously, and somehow that’s an issue for an admin?? 😂
Calls me a liar, then says exactly what I said they think
Nope! I never said you get the wrong answer with 3(3) - noted you were unable to show where I supposedly said that - so no, I did not say what you said I think 🙄
Me: consistently using the Distributive Law throughout the thread.
Nope. Let’s go to the screenshots again…
I showed you two
Nope, you showed Wikipedia, which is known to be wrong, as per Maths textbooks
True, but reading again carefully would change what you thought was written
Nope. Still says add all positive numbers first! 😂
You think all maths knowledge only comes from school textbooks!
Never said anything of the sort liar, which is why you’re unable to quote me saying that. I did say to you, repeatedly, that you are unable to cite any Maths textbooks that support you, and so far you have proven that to be true, since you haven’t cited any maths textbooks. You really do need to work on that poor comprehension of yours 😂
Nope, see screenshot of you saying they are the same
Nope! That was you! Here we go…
so you don’t know what “context” is
Says person who can’t even remember what he said, despite me posting screenshots of him saying it 😂
In which case they will often make mistakes, as shown by the “9 minus whatever plus something” equation I did
In which you failed that anyone at all has ever done it like that, other than you 😂
I get that you’re only on your “day two on the Internet” so you’re not aware of it, but these kinds of equations cause people A LOT of trouble
Says person who can’t show anyone having trouble with it, thus revealing himself as the Day 2 person 😂
I get what you’re saying. That if
Where you then went on to say something completely unrelated to anything I said, thus proving you don’t get what I’m saying 😂
I hope, you get where this line of thinking fails, right?
Which would maybe be why I never said anything of the sort 😂
so you’re saying that a site teaching maths is wrong
Yep, there’s a lot of them. Welcome to what happens when people don’t have to have Maths qualifications to write a Maths website. Welcome to the Internet Day 2 person! 😂
your proof is
Maths textbooks
A is not before S
So, it’s not bedmAS and pemdAS?? 😂
A is equal to S in the order of operations
Which means you can do them in any order, including doing A BEFORE S, a concept you are having a lot of trouble with 😂 having claimed that led people to get wrong answers, like 9-3+2=4, which so far you’ve not shown anyone making that mistake other than you 😂
PEMDAS and BODMAS (where, I’m sure your keen eye will notice, the D and M are flipped)
and are not written as PE(MD)(AS) and BE(DM)(AS), which you claimed is important to remember, and still haven’t backed up with any evidence whatsoever! 😂
Addition and subtraction also work together. You can do subtraction first, or you can do addition first
Yep, as I’ve been telling you all along. So where’s this bit about “it’s important to remember PE(MD)(AS)” then? Not anywhere in this source 😂
So, there’s that
Which doesn’t support your argument that it’s PE(MD)(AS), so there’s that 😂
I thought you were capable of checking the sources on the bottom of the article.
Which also weren’t Maths textbooks, as I already pointed out to you 😂
wouldn’t consider actual mathematical research as sources
Mr. Lack of Comprehension still not understanding the words MATHS TEXTBOOKS 🤣🤣🤣
I hope the university article links above will be good enough?
Do you need to get your mum to read this out to you to spot the difference between the phrases “Maths textbooks” and “University article”? 😂
You have an extremely weird fixation on brackets
You were the one who made the claim about the brackets. I’m just debunking your rubbish claim about the brackets 😂
The only thing we’ve debunked is your understanding of mathematical fundamentals and reading skills.
says someone who can’t tell the difference between Maths textbooks, and any one of a dozen other things 😂
You caught me on misremembering one of the couple of examples I gave you!
Lying is the word you’re looking for, and more than a couple
So now, again, why did you start talking about 1 + 3 if the examples were 2 - 2 and 2 / 2?
Take you own advice - go back and read it slowly this time 😂 Still says the same thing as when I first said it
Awww… You can’t answer these questions?
No, you can’t defend your claim, so you keep deflecting
And where are the brackets, friend?
Speaking of being fixated on brackets 😂
as I see you’ll just never let go of this misconception of yours, here you are:
Still not a Maths textbook. Have you noticed yet that you haven’t been able to cite any Maths textbook that supports your claims?? 😂
You can see the exact same notation as I used
That wasn’t from a Maths textbook
When you read the rest of that Level 1 introductory lesson
It still won’t be a Maths textbook
it’s OK to have a vivid imagination, but you’re just making yourself look silly when you talk about it with others as if it’s fact
The proof is in this thread 😂
Setting pronumerals to 1 is the same as just removing them from the notation completely
which means it is totally valid to add all positive numbers first, as per the textbook which had an example with pronumerals and did just that😂
I firmly believe that we can get you to understand the whole thing within a week!
says person who still doesn’t understand what the words “Maths textbooks” MEANS 😂
Exponents come after brackets
That’s right
so I’m curious to see how you solve that with your logic
Ummm, you do the brackets and then the exponent. Not sure what you find unclear about that
It has an obvious correct solution
The one where you do the brackets before the exponent
which is 128
Nope! You can only get that by doing the exponent before the brackets, which is against the order of operations rules. Or did you wrongly add a multiply sign before the brackets - that also yields a different answer
you need to distribute in the brackets step
That’s right, so why did you do the exponent first?
which comes before exponents,
That’s right. So why did you do the exponent first?
so let’s see what you do with it
Brackets before exponents, as already established 🙄
I know that you finally understood what I was talking about,
other way around dude, as proven by screenshots
t’s OK to keep it all to a single thread
So you want to keep it here, because the other is full of screenshots proving you wrong and you want to ignore them?? 🤣🤣🤣
Yes, because I finished third grade in primary school
Which would explain why you don’t know The Distributive Law, which is taught in Year 7
Do you also expect evidence of gravity?
No, just evidence to back up your claims, but of course you don’t have any
Go back and read the comments again
You know reading things again doesn’t change what’s written right?? No, you don’t, since you kept asking me to re-read the part about doing all addition first, thinking somehow that was magically going to change if I read it again 😂
you can find the answers
Nope! Hard to find when you didn’t answer, and notably you’ve not done a screenshot of them, because they don’t exist. Weird how you’re the only one not able to back up anything of what you’ve said 😂
Yeah, if you ignore what the text says
which you just did, again, because you know it proves you are wrong 😂 Why are you so afraid to quote it if you think it proves you are right? 😂
However, if you actually read the letters on the screenshot, you’ll find that it does
still say, do all addition first
you’re also incapable of scrolling down to the sources part of the article…?
Well, apparently you are, since there are no Maths textbooks listed in the sources 😂
I never said anything like that
Let’s go to the screenshot…
I said that, in terms of the order of operations, addition/subtraction and multiplication/division are equal, because they can be inverted (subtraction into addition of negative numbers, division into multiplication of fractions) to achieve
Nope, see screenshot of you saying they are the same
understand that concept, you can skip subtraction and division from the mnemonics
Now you’re just rehashing the same already-debunked rubbish. The whole point of the mnemonics is for those who don’t understand, just follow these steps 🙄
prove that what I linked to is wrong
Did that already with the textbooks and worked examples. Maybe you need to read it slowly? 😂
One more time: welcome to the Internet
One more time, welcome to you can’t debunk what I said, so you deflect
I like how you’re doing exactly what I’m talking about while still saying I’m incorrect
Nope. Again let’s go to the screenshot…
quote one example equation I did here that proves I’m not understanding these concepts. :)
See previous screenshot 😂
But is not reinforced by the mnemonic itself
AS doesn’t reinforce doing A before S? 😂
Reading comprehension, remember?
Yep, you’ve got none. You thought Wikipedia counted as a Maths textbook 😂
I’m glad I was able to explain this to you
I knew it all along - you were the one saying that the brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS), which we’ve now comprehensively debunked 😂
See above
Yep, you finally proved yourself wrong because the mental gymnastics weren’t up to proving that brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS) 😂
when the examples were 2 + 2 and 2 * 2?
No they weren’t! You have such a short memory, no wonder you ended up contradicting yourself! 🤣 Let’s go to the screenshot…
I’m going to ask you a couple of questions so
you can deflect again 😂
I understand how brackets work and that was a perfectly valid use
Nope, we proved it wasn’t 😂
says person who thinks doing addition first for 9-3+2 is 4
Now you’re just inventing things I never said.
Let’s go to the screenshot… 😂
It wasn’t 2 - 2, tho
Let’s go to the screenshot, again…
Or did you fail to read that correctly too?
Not me. See previous screenshot 😂
Again, I’m glad you’re slowly getting to the point I was making
Nope. your point that brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS) is still wrong, as proven 😂
It’s weird how you’re still phrasing it like I was somehow wrong
says person who proved it was wrong 😂
Considering that’s exactly what I did
Nope! You claimed it was entirely different if you did that. Again, let’s go to the screenshot…
You’re so cute when you’re trying to turn this whole argument on its head after realising how silly your initial points were!
says the person actually trying to do that, as proven by the screenshots 😂
Ok bro so answer my question
Deflection is the word you’re looking for
what’s the result of the expression I wrote above?
So… you’re telling me you don’t know what comes first out of Brackets and Exponents in order of operations? That’s your deflection strategy??
Whatever makes you feel better about your ignorance.
Says person who proved themselves wrong, and is now withdrawing from the conversation to hide their ignorance 😂
One day you’ll look back at this and think “damn, I really was an idiot back then!”
Says person who has run out of mental gymnastics that can be applied. I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong then
I’m falling for the troll here
Just as well for you I’ve provided all the necessary evidence to prove them wrong then
I’m honestly disappointed that you just downvoted and left
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I DIDN’T leave, quite demonstrably.
Challenging your beliefs with contrary ideas is the only way to improve them and understand the world in a more comprehensive and accurate way
So how come you won’t then?
I should clarify that I haven’t responded to your “points” because there is nothing worth responding to
In other words, you have been proven wrong by them
Your arguments can all be debunked by reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
Wikipedia can be comprehensively debunked by MATHS TEXTBOOKS - you know, those things you refuse to look at because they prove you are wrong 😂
I didn’t bother doing it myself.
So in other words, Wikipedia is all you had, and, having been disproven by Maths textbooks, you’ve got nothing
I will be blocking you
An admission of defeat then
I feel that the deleted post is in itself a very good final word to this disappointment of a “conversation”
Feel free to unblock me when you’re ready to take your own advice
if it is not entirely accurate
Just like all your other posts then
Goodbye
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out
Bro directly after what you underlined it says “if you want to remove the brackets”
Yep, that’s right, and removing brackets is the first step in order of operations 😂
Selective reading much?
By you apparently.
“If” means optional
So… you’re telling me that the “B” step in BEDMAS, and the “P” step in PEMDAS, is optional? I don’t have to remove Brackets?? 😂 Better go back to school dude
You are free to solve what’s inside the brackets first, before multiplying it with what’s outside
Yep, but inside the brackets, as per the text you can see in the screenshot 😂
5(8-5)=(5x8-5x5)=(40-25)=15
5(8-5)=5(3)=(5x3)=15 <== Multiplication inside the Brackets, as per The Distributive Law
same answer both ways 😂
the link I posted is literally titled “distributive law”, not property
But has a multiply sign in it, thus proving it is the Property that they are talking about - The Distributive Property of Multiplication over Addition to call it by it’s full name
You realize a law can have conditions, right?
You realise it literally must be obeyed, right? The condition that The Distributive Law has, is “A number or letter next to a Bracket”, direct quote from the textbook, hence a(b+c)=(ab+ac), and not ax(b+c) since the a is not next to the bracket in that case
I’m not wrong.
says person who has no evidence whatsoever to show that they are correct, so as I said, no matter how many times you repeat it, you are still wrong 😂
You never asked for citations.
And the questions I did ask you didn’t answer anyway, because you know in both cases it proves you wrong. Notice how I didn’t need you to ask me for evidence to produce it? That’s what people who are backed up by facts can do 😂
you did it for me with your screenshot
Which proved you were wrong 😂
But here you go
Well, here you go proving you have a severe comprehension problem anyway… 😂
Multiplying by a number is the same as dividing by its reciprocal and vice versa
Yep, gives the same result, but does not say that the number and it’s inverse are the same thing 😂
Here’s another source if you’re allergic to Wikipedia
Which also wasn’t a Maths textbook 😂 So far you’re only proving my point that you can’t cite any Maths textbooks that agree with you
Again, the mnemonics, when taught without appropriate context
Which they never are
cause people to think that 9-3+2 is 4
Nope, no-one thinks that. Addition first for 9-3+2 is +(9+2)-3=+11-3=8 same correct answer as left to right, which is why the textbook teaches you to do it that way 😂
If you understand what is multiplication and what is addition
Which you’re demonstrated repeatedly that you don’t, and here we are
who think that the order of operations is set to: Multiplication → Division → Addition → Subtraction
Which is a totally valid thing to do, as is taught by the textbook 🙄
instead of being (M or D, start from the left) → (A or S, start from the left)
Which is also a valid thing to do. That’s the whole point, it does not matter which order you do addition and subtraction 😂
when the actual result is 8, because they think that they have to calculate the addition first
And when they do calculate the addition first, they get an answer of 8, as I just proved a few comments back 😂 Add all the positive numbers, then subtract the total of all the negative numbers. This is so not complicated, and yet you seem to have trouble understanding it
Where did you get the 1 and 3 from?
From an example of how 2+2 and 1+3 aren’t the same thing, even though they equal the same value, which you are now trying to avoid addressing because you know it proves you are wrong 😂
Do you not know what fractions are…?
I’m starting to wonder if you do, given you think 2/2 is the same thing as 2x½ - one has a fraction, the other doesn’t, but you think they are the same thing 🙄
You’re so very, very confused by all of this
says person not remembering that they brought it up to begin with… 😂
you have absolutely fundamental lacks in understanding of maths
says person who thinks doing addition first for 9-3+2 is 4 😂
maths textbooks all over the world use brackets all the time
Not for 2-2 they don’t. Go ahead and cite one. I’ll wait
you can write 2 - 2 as -2 + 2, or - a slightly less legible version - as 2 + -2. You’ll get the same result, and this inversion is a perfectly “legal” mathematical operation. Which shows you how addition and subtraction are equal
Which proves my point that you can do addition and subtraction in any order, given you just admitted that 2-2 and -2+2 give the same result 😂
One more time, let me
deflect from the point, yet again
We were not talking about monomials
No, we were talking about textbooks teaching to do addition first, and you then deflected into talking about monomials, because you knew it proved you were wrong 😂
If you set the pronumerals in addition/subtraction problems to 1, you would have
The exact same thing as an expression written without pronumerals 😂 I see you’re still not understanding how pronumerals work then
difference between -2 + 2 and 2 - 2 is the same, proving - again - that subtraction is equal to addition of a negative
and thus proving again that they can be done in any order 😂 It’s so hilarious watching you prove yourself wrong
Which is my point. Which you are proving
No, you’re actually proving my point 🤣
I didn’t have to, you did it for me.
I only posted things that prove you wrong, but apparently I don’t need to because you are proving yourself wrong 🤣
Now do -(2+4) + (1+3) and guess what you have?
The exact same answer, -2, again proving you can do them in any order 🤣
I already suggested this: read it again, but slower.
It still says add all positive numbers first, then subtract the total of the negative numbers. I’m not sure what you think is going to happen - are you expecting the words to magically change if you read it slowly? 🤣
it’s actually a kind of “mental exercise” for me
Yep, mental gymnastics left, right, and centre 😂
This guy thinks 3(2+1) gets the wrong answer if you do 3(3)
No I don’t, liar. Hilarious that now you’re having to resort to making things up 😂
instead of 32+31
Which can definitely give wrong answers
1/3(2+1)=1/(6+3)=(1/9)
1/3(3)=1/(3x3)=(1/9) same answer
1/3x2+3x1=(3/2)+3 Oops! WRONG ANSWER 😂
proceed knowing it’s all you’re going to get
All you’re going to get from me is facts, correct, as opposed to you who can’t come up with any facts! 😂
I really want to have a good discussion about this
says person who deleted their previous post when I proved how wrong it was 😂
it is not possible with your debate style
There’s no debate - the rules are in Maths textbooks, which you want to pretend don’t exist
You fail to understand the argument your opponent is making
You haven’t got one. That’s why you keep pretending Maths textbooks don’t exist
By divorcing each partial statement from its surrounding context
says person who deleted one of their posts to remove the context. 😂 The context is the rules of Maths, in case you needed to be reminded 😂
you are likely to change its meaning
Nope. I’m still talking about the rules of Maths 😂
You are not making a point of your own
Ok, so here you are admitting to comprehension problems. Which part did you not understand in addition and subtraction can be done in any order? 😂
You are simply stating facts, opinions, or misunderstandings as if they are self-evidently true
You left out backing it up with textbook screenshots and worked examples 😂
without knowing why you believe them to be true.
There’s no belief involved. It’s easy enough to prove it yourself by doing the Maths 😂
it’s very easy to state two contradictory things without realizing it
And yet I never have. Why do you think that is? 😂
“No they can’t. The rules are universal”
Which is correct
“It’s only a convention, not a rule, as just proven”
Which is also correct, and in no way contradicts the previous point, and I have no idea why you think it does! 😂 The first point is about the rules, and the second point is about conventions, which isn’t even the same thing
this also makes it hard for people to find the mistakes
That’s because I’m not making any 😂
I can see that you don’t fully understand what I mean by “operator precedence”
Says person who in their other post claimed “addition first” for -1+3+2 is -(1+3+2) = -6, and not +(3+2)-1=4 😂
If your opponent also used this debate style,
Which you don’t, given you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your points with 😂
ends up entirely divorced from the initial meaning
I’ve been on-point the whole time, and you keep trying to deflect from how wrong your statements are 😂
Please do not take these as insults
Well, obviously not, given I just proved they were all wrong 😂
allows you to understand why people know the brackets matter.
Except I’ve proven, repeatedly, that they don’t, and so now you’re trying to deflect from that (and deleted one of your posts to hide the evidence of how wrong you are) 😂
Some other pedantic notes you may find interesting
It’s hilarious that you added in this in afterwards, hoping I wouldn’t see it so you could claim the last word 😂
There is no “correct answer” to an expression without defining the order of operations on that expression
There is only one order of operations, defined in many Maths textbooks.
Addition, subtraction, etc. are mathematical necessities that must work the way they do
Hence the order of operations rules, found in Maths textbooks
But PE(MD)(AS) is something we made up
PEMDAS actually, and yes, it’s only a convention, not the rules themselves
there is no actual reason why that must be the operator precedence rule we use
That’s why it’s only a convention, and not a rule.
this is what causes issues with communicating about these things.
Nope, doesn’t cause any issues - the rules themselves are the same everywhere, and all of the different mnemonics all work
Your second example, -1+3+2=4, actually opens up an interesting can of worms
No it doesn’t
so subtraction is a-b
Just -b actually
negation is -c
Which is still subtraction, from 0, because every operation on the numberline starts from 0, we just don’t bother writing the zero (just like we don’t bother writing the + sign when the expression starts with an addition).
a two-argument definition of subtraction
Subtraction is unary operator, not binary. If you’re subtracting from another number, then that number has it’s own operator that it’s associated with (and might be an unwritten +), it’s not associated with the subtraction at all.
you can also define -1 as a single symbol
No you can’t. You can put it in Brackets to make it joined to the minus sign though, like in (-1)²=1, as opposed to -1²=-1
not as a negation operation followed by a positive one
The 1 can’t be positive if it follows a minus sign - it’s the rule of Left Associativity 😂
These distinctions are for the most part pedantic formalities
No, they’re just you spouting more wrong stuff 😂
you could argue that -1+3+2 evaluated with addition having a higher precedence than subtraction is -(1+3+2) = -6
No, you can’t. Giving addition a higher priority is +(3+2)-1=+5-1=4, as per Maths textbooks…
Isn’t that interesting?
No, all of it was wrong, again 😂
You must not distribute brother
Literally a Law of Maths, but go ahead and stay in Denial about it 😂
It’s optional
You think the word “must” means it’s optional?? 😂
Google distributive law and find me one source saying it’s imperative to distribute
Go through Maths textbooks and find me one which says it isn’t, or alternatively go through dictionaries and find me one that says “must” means “optional” 😂
there’s none
He says, when I’ve already posted multiple textbooks which say it is 😂
You can even confirm this is true yourself with simple examples like the ones I’ve mentioned above
I’ve confirmed it with Maths textbooks - you know, those things you refuse to look in because you know they prove you are wrong 😂 BTW your “example above” was about The Distributive Property, as I already pointed out to you at the time
you’re just using (AS) without realizing it
as per the textbooks 🙄
Conversations around operator precedence can cause real differences in how expressions are evaluated
No they can’t. The rules are universal
you might not underatand it yourself
says someone about to prove that they don’t understand it… 😂
With (AS), 3-2+1 = (3-2)+1 = 1+1 = 2
Nope! With AS 3-2+1=+(3+1)-(2)=4-2=2
This is what you would expect
Yes, I expected you to not understand what AS meant 😂
since we do generally agree to evaluate addition and subtraction with the same precedence left-to-right
It’s only a convention, not a rule, as just proven
With SA, the evaluation is the same
No it isn’t. With SA 3-2+1=-(2)+(3+1)=-2+4=2
you get the same answer
Yep, because order doesn’t matter 🙄 AS and SA both give the same answer
No issue there for this expression
Or any expression
But with AS, 3-2+1 = 3-(2+1)
You just violated the rules and changed the sign of the 1 from a + to a minus. 🙄 -(2+1)=-2-1, not -2+1. Welcome to how you got a wrong answer when you wrongly added brackets to it and mixed the different signs together
So evaluating addition with higher precedence rather than equal precedence yields a different answer
No it doesn’t., as already proven. 3-2+1=+(3+1)-(2)=+4-2=2, same answer 🙄
Yep, all known to give wrong order of operations answers
Well, it’s not me, so…
That’s right. Welcome to programmers writing Maths apps without checking that they have their Maths right first. BTW, in some cases it’s as bad as one of their calculators saying 2+3x4=20! 😂
To be clear, I am correct, because Distribution is part of the Brackets step, as we have already established…
Yes
No, you haven’t finished solving the Brackets yet, which you must do before proceeding…
Nope! We have already established that you cannot remove the brackets if you haven’t Distributed yet…
So what we actually get is…
2(8)²=(2x8)²=16²
and now that I have removed the Brackets, I can now do the exponent,
16²=256
Welcome to you finding the answer to 2x(3+5)² - where the 2 is separate to the brackets, separated from them by the multiply sign - rather than 2(3+5)², which has no multiply sign, and therefore the 2 must be Distributed