Your argument you haven’t made is backed up by math textbooks you haven’t provided written for children.
What is it that you want addressed?
How can that specific order of operations be a law of mathematics if it only applies to infix notation, and not prefix or postfix notations? Laws of mathematics are universal across notations.
Show me a textbook that discusses other notations and also says that order of operations is a law of mathematics.
You don’t have it, and you also aren’t a maths teacher, or a teacher at all. Just because you say it a lot doesn’t make it true.
Your argument you haven’t made is backed up by math textbooks you haven’t provided written for children
That’s quite a word salad. You wanna try that again, but make sense this time?
Your argument you haven’t made
If I didn’t make it then it’s not my argument, it’s somebody else’s 😂
is backed up by math textbooks you haven’t provided
as well as the textbooks I have provided 😂
written for children
All my textbooks are for teenagers and adults
How can that specific order of operations be a law of mathematics if it only applies to infix notation, and not prefix or postfix notations
I already addressed that here. I knew you were making up that I hadn’t addressed something 🙄
Laws of mathematics are universal across notations
Correct, they do.
also says that order of operations is a law of mathematics.
If you think it’s not a Law, then all you have to do is give an example which proves it isn’t. I’ll wait
You don’t have it
You mean you don’t have a counter-example which proves it’s not a Law
you also aren’t a maths teacher
says liar
Just because you say it a lot doesn’t make it true.
You know you just saying it’s not true doesn’t make it not true, right? 🤣🤣🤣
BTW, going back to when you said
8÷2x4 PEMDAS: 8÷2x4 = 8÷8 = 1
Here it is from a textbook I came across this week which proves I was right that you did it wrong 😂
Therefore, doing Multiplication first for 8÷2x4 is {(8x4)÷2}, not 8÷(2x4) - whatever you want to do first, you write first - exactly as I told you to begin with 🙄
Left to right is a convention, yes, doing Multiplication and Division before Addition and Subtraction is a rule 🙄
A claim entirely unsupported by the textbook example you provided. Nowhere does it say that one is a convention but not the other, it only says that removing brackets changes the meaning in some situations, which is fully within the scope of a convention.
For the 3rd time it does have order of operations 🙄You just do them in some random order do you?
There you go again, just admitting you don’t know what postfix and prefix notations are.
If you’re ordering your operations based what the operator is, like PEDMAS, then what you’re doing isn’t prefix or postfix.
I’ll tell you what, here is a great free article from Colorado State university talking about prefix, postfix, and infix notations.
Note how it says the rules about operator precedence are for the notation which itself is a convention, as all notations are, and how prefix and postfix don’t need those rules
says person who doesn’t know the difference between conventions and rules, and thinks postfix notation doesn’t have rules 🙄
How embarrassing for you.
Here are some more materials:
Plus dozens of Quora answers, articles from online academies and learning centers, that I figured you’d just dismiss.
But to top it all off, if this was truely a law of mathematics, then show me a proof, theorem, or even a mathematical conjecture, about order of operations.
But to top it all off, if this was truely a law of mathematics, then show me a proof, theorem, or even a mathematical conjecture, about order of operations.
Our friend doesn’t know what a mathematical proof is, and 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.
When I explained to him 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, with no sign of understanding.
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 🤣🤣🤣
Strange that this way of assigning meaning to a string of mathematical symbols is a convention then, but not the other part that is mentioned in the same paragraph 🤔🤔🤔
Your argument you haven’t made is backed up by math textbooks you haven’t provided written for children.
How can that specific order of operations be a law of mathematics if it only applies to infix notation, and not prefix or postfix notations? Laws of mathematics are universal across notations.
Show me a textbook that discusses other notations and also says that order of operations is a law of mathematics.
You don’t have it, and you also aren’t a maths teacher, or a teacher at all. Just because you say it a lot doesn’t make it true.
That’s quite a word salad. You wanna try that again, but make sense this time?
If I didn’t make it then it’s not my argument, it’s somebody else’s 😂
as well as the textbooks I have provided 😂
All my textbooks are for teenagers and adults
I already addressed that here. I knew you were making up that I hadn’t addressed something 🙄
Correct, they do.
If you think it’s not a Law, then all you have to do is give an example which proves it isn’t. I’ll wait
You mean you don’t have a counter-example which proves it’s not a Law
says liar
You know you just saying it’s not true doesn’t make it not true, right? 🤣🤣🤣
BTW, going back to when you said
Here it is from a textbook I came across this week which proves I was right that you did it wrong 😂
Therefore, doing Multiplication first for 8÷2x4 is {(8x4)÷2}, not 8÷(2x4) - whatever you want to do first, you write first - exactly as I told you to begin with 🙄
In your screenshot of a textbook, they refer to it as a convention twice.
And you still haven’t explained prefix or postfix notation not having order of operations.
Get rekd idiot
Left to right is a convention, yes, doing Multiplication and Division before Addition and Subtraction is a rule 🙄
For the 3rd time it does have order of operations 🙄 You just do them in some random order do you? No wonder you don’t know how Maths works
says person who doesn’t know the difference between conventions and rules, and thinks postfix notation doesn’t have rules 🙄
A claim entirely unsupported by the textbook example you provided. Nowhere does it say that one is a convention but not the other, it only says that removing brackets changes the meaning in some situations, which is fully within the scope of a convention.
There you go again, just admitting you don’t know what postfix and prefix notations are.
If you’re ordering your operations based what the operator is, like PEDMAS, then what you’re doing isn’t prefix or postfix.
I’ll tell you what, here is a great free article from Colorado State university talking about prefix, postfix, and infix notations.
Note how it says the rules about operator precedence are for the notation which itself is a convention, as all notations are, and how prefix and postfix don’t need those rules
How embarrassing for you.
Here are some more materials:
But to top it all off, if this was truely a law of mathematics, then show me a proof, theorem, or even a mathematical conjecture, about order of operations.
Our friend doesn’t know what a mathematical proof is, and 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.
When I explained to him 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, with no sign of understanding.
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 🤣🤣🤣
I have no idea who you’re talking about, but it ain’t me! 😂
the definitions of the operators 🙄
was precisely nothing
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 🙄
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 😂
It quite clearly states that left to right is a convention 🙄
“the other” wasn’t even the subject at hand. 🙄 Here you go then…
But not within the scope of rules 🙄
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 🙄
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? 😂
Because (sigh) the same rules apply to all notations 🙄
Yep, and are separate to the rules, which are the same for all notations
Nope. Doesn’t say that anywhere. Go ahead and screenshot the part which you think says that. I’ll wait
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 🙄
No, you actually. You know, the person who can’t find a single textbook that agrees with them 😂
NONE of which were Maths textbooks, NOR Maths teachers 😂
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 😂
Did you even read it?? Dude doesn’t even know the definition of Terms, ab=(axb) 🤣🤣🤣
“Without an agreed upon order” - Ummm, we have proven rules, which literally anyone can prove to themselves 😂
“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 🙄
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 🙄
It actually did a better job than all of the university blogs you posted! 🤣🤣🤣
Because not Maths textbooks, duuuuhhhh 🤣🤣🤣
Which it is as per Maths textbooks 🤣🤣🤣
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 🤣🤣🤣
That screenshot calls it a convention you troll.
says the actual troll, who didn’t notice it was talking about left to right,. which is indeed a convention which it is explaining 🤣🤣🤣
Strange that this way of assigning meaning to a string of mathematical symbols is a convention then, but not the other part that is mentioned in the same paragraph 🤔🤔🤔