A fake Facebook event disguised as a math problem has been one of its top posts for 6 months
Technology
164
Beiträge
71
Kommentatoren
31
Aufrufe
-
Those rules are based on axioms
Nope! The order of operations rules come from the proof of the definitions in the first place. 3x4=3+3+3+3 by definition, therefore if you don't do the multiplication first in 2+3x4 you get a wrong answer (having changed the multiplicand).
As far as I know statements are pretty common
And yet you've not been able to quote a Maths textbook using that word.
are a foundational part of all math
Expressions are.
It’s not really a yes or no thing
It's really a no thing.
And again laws are created using statements
Not the Laws of Maths. e.g. The Distributive Law is expressed with the identity a(b+c)=(ab+ac). An identity is a special type of equation. We have...
Numerals
Pronumerals
Expressions
Equations (or Formula)
Identities
No statements. Everything is precisely defined in Maths, everything has one meaning only.
Order of operations is not a hard rule. It is a convention. It's something agreed upon but is it not something that is universally true.
Solve for X
X^2=4
-
But +, -, *, and / are all binary operators?
No, only multiply and divide are. 2+3 is really +2+3, but we don't write the first plus usually (on the other hand we do always write the minus if it starts with one).
As far as I know, the only reason multiplication and division come first is that we’ve all agreed to it.
No, they come first because you get wrong answers if you don't do them first. e.g. 2+3x4=14, not 20. All the rules of Maths exist to make sure you get correct answers. Multiplication is defined as repeated addition - 3x4=3+3+3+3 - hence wrong answers if you do the addition first (just changed the multiplicand, and hence the answer). Ditto for exponents, which are defined as repeated multiplication, a^2=(axa). Order of operations is the process of reducing everything down to adds and subtracts on a number line. 3^2=3x3=3+3+3
Very confidently getting basic facts wrong doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of your comments.
Your example still doesn't give a reason why 2 + 3 * 4 is 2 + 3 + 3 + 3 +3 instead of 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 other than that we all agree to it.
-
Order of operations is not a hard rule. It is a convention. It's something agreed upon but is it not something that is universally true.
Solve for X
X^2=4
Order of operations is not a hard rule
Yes it is.
It is a convention.
Left to right is a convention. Left Associativity is a hard rule. Left to right is a convention which obeys the rule of Left Associativity.
It’s something agreed upon
It's something that is a natural consequence of the definitions of the operators in the first place. As soon as Multiplication was defined in terms of Addition, that guaranteed we would always have to do Multiplication before Addition to get right answers.
is it not something that is universally true
Yes it is! All of Maths is universally true!
Solve for X X^2=4
You know that's no longer an order of operations problem, right?
-
Very confidently getting basic facts wrong doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of your comments.
Your example still doesn't give a reason why 2 + 3 * 4 is 2 + 3 + 3 + 3 +3 instead of 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 other than that we all agree to it.
Very confidently getting basic facts wrong doesn’t inspire confidence in the rest of your comments.
...says person quoting Wikipedia and NOT a Maths textbook!
Your example still doesn’t give a reason why 2 + 3 * 4 is 2 + 3 + 3 + 3 +3
Yes it does., need to work on your comprehension..
Multiplication is defined as repeated addition - 3x4=3+3+3+3
other than that we all agree to it
You can disagree as much as you want and 3x4 will still be defined as 3+3+3+3. It's been that way ever since Multiplication was invented.
-
The issue normally with these “trick” questions
There's no "trick" - it's a straight-out test of Maths knowledge.
the ambiguous nature of that division sign
Nothing ambiguous about it. The Term of the left divided by the Term on the right.
A common mistake is to think division is prioritised above multiplication
It's not a mistake. You can do them in any order you want.
when it actually has the same priority
Which means you can do them in any order
"A common mistake is to think division is prioritised above multiplication"
That is what I said. I said it's a mistake to think one of them has a precedence over the other. You're arguing the same point I'm making?
-
"A common mistake is to think division is prioritised above multiplication"
That is what I said. I said it's a mistake to think one of them has a precedence over the other. You're arguing the same point I'm making?
I said it’s a mistake to think one of them has a precedence over the other
And I said it's not a mistake. You still get the right answer.
You’re arguing the same point I’m making?
No, I'm telling you that prioritising either isn't a mistake. Mistakes give wrong answers. Prioritising either doesn't give wrong answers.
-
Very confidently getting basic facts wrong doesn’t inspire confidence in the rest of your comments.
...says person quoting Wikipedia and NOT a Maths textbook!
Your example still doesn’t give a reason why 2 + 3 * 4 is 2 + 3 + 3 + 3 +3
Yes it does., need to work on your comprehension..
Multiplication is defined as repeated addition - 3x4=3+3+3+3
other than that we all agree to it
You can disagree as much as you want and 3x4 will still be defined as 3+3+3+3. It's been that way ever since Multiplication was invented.
The arithmetic operations, addition +
, subtraction −
, multiplication ×
, and division ÷That better? Or you can find one you like all by yourself: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=binary+operator&ko=-1&ia=web
Yes it does., need to work on your comprehension..
And you can shove the condescension up your ass until you understand the difference between unary and binary operators.
But to original point. I'm not disagreeing with anything and you're proving my point for me. There is no fundamental law of the universe that says multiplication comes first. It's defined by man and agreed to. If we encounter aliens someday, the area of their triangles are still going to be half the width times the height, the ratios of their circles circumference to diameter are still going to be pi, regardless of how they represent those values. But they could very well prioritize addition and subtraction over multiplication and division.
-
The arithmetic operations, addition +
, subtraction −
, multiplication ×
, and division ÷That better? Or you can find one you like all by yourself: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=binary+operator&ko=-1&ia=web
Yes it does., need to work on your comprehension..
And you can shove the condescension up your ass until you understand the difference between unary and binary operators.
But to original point. I'm not disagreeing with anything and you're proving my point for me. There is no fundamental law of the universe that says multiplication comes first. It's defined by man and agreed to. If we encounter aliens someday, the area of their triangles are still going to be half the width times the height, the ratios of their circles circumference to diameter are still going to be pi, regardless of how they represent those values. But they could very well prioritize addition and subtraction over multiplication and division.
That better?
Is it a Maths textbook?
Or you can find one you like all by yourself
I already have dozens of Maths textbooks thanks.
And you can shove the condescension up your ass until you understand the difference between unary and binary operators
It's not me who doesn't understand the difference.
you’re proving my point for me.
Still need to work on your comprehension then. I did nothing of the sort.
There is no fundamental law of the universe that says multiplication comes first.
Yes there is. The fact that it's defined as repeated addition. You don't do it first, you get wrong answers.
It’s defined by man and agreed to
It's been defined and man has no choice but to agree with the consequences of the definition, or you get wrong answers.
But they could very well prioritize addition and subtraction over multiplication and division
No they couldn't. It gives wrong answers.
-
Order of operations is not a hard rule
Yes it is.
It is a convention.
Left to right is a convention. Left Associativity is a hard rule. Left to right is a convention which obeys the rule of Left Associativity.
It’s something agreed upon
It's something that is a natural consequence of the definitions of the operators in the first place. As soon as Multiplication was defined in terms of Addition, that guaranteed we would always have to do Multiplication before Addition to get right answers.
is it not something that is universally true
Yes it is! All of Maths is universally true!
Solve for X X^2=4
You know that's no longer an order of operations problem, right?
What proof do you have that using a left to right rule is universally true?
From my understanding It's an agreed convention that is followed which doesn't make it a universal truth. If we're all doing it just to make things easier to understand, that implies we could have a right to left rule. It's also true that not all cultures right in the same way.
But here is an interesting quote from Florian Cajori in his book a history of mathematical notations.
Lastly here is an article that also highlights the issue.
https://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2013/03/15/the-horror-of-pemdas
Some of you are already insisting in your head that 6 ÷ 2(1+2) has only one right answer, but hear me out. The problem isn’t the mathematical operations. It’s knowing what operations the author of the problem wants you to do, and in what order. Simple, right? We use an “order of operations” rule we memorized in childhood: “Please excuse my dear Aunt Sally,” or PEMDAS, which stands for Parentheses Exponents Multiplication Division Addition Subtraction.* This handy acronym should settle any debate—except it doesn’t, because it’s not a rule at all. It’s a convention, a customary way of doing things we’ve developed only recently, and like other customs, it has evolved over time. (And even math teachers argue over order of operations.)
-
That better?
Is it a Maths textbook?
Or you can find one you like all by yourself
I already have dozens of Maths textbooks thanks.
And you can shove the condescension up your ass until you understand the difference between unary and binary operators
It's not me who doesn't understand the difference.
you’re proving my point for me.
Still need to work on your comprehension then. I did nothing of the sort.
There is no fundamental law of the universe that says multiplication comes first.
Yes there is. The fact that it's defined as repeated addition. You don't do it first, you get wrong answers.
It’s defined by man and agreed to
It's been defined and man has no choice but to agree with the consequences of the definition, or you get wrong answers.
But they could very well prioritize addition and subtraction over multiplication and division
No they couldn't. It gives wrong answers.
Actually, it is. Written by a PhD and used in a college course. It just happens to be distributed for free because Canada is cool like that.
The LibreTexts libraries are Powered by NICE CXone Expert and are supported by the Department of Education Open Textbook Pilot Project, the UC Davis Office of the Provost, the UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions Program
May want to work on your own reading comprehension.
It's not me who doesn't understand the difference.
The facts disagree.
You can keep saying defined all you want, it doesn't change the underlying issue that it's defined by man. In the absence of all your books (which you clearly don't understand anyway based on our discussion of unary vs binary) order of operations only exists because we all agree to it.
-
What proof do you have that using a left to right rule is universally true?
From my understanding It's an agreed convention that is followed which doesn't make it a universal truth. If we're all doing it just to make things easier to understand, that implies we could have a right to left rule. It's also true that not all cultures right in the same way.
But here is an interesting quote from Florian Cajori in his book a history of mathematical notations.
Lastly here is an article that also highlights the issue.
https://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2013/03/15/the-horror-of-pemdas
Some of you are already insisting in your head that 6 ÷ 2(1+2) has only one right answer, but hear me out. The problem isn’t the mathematical operations. It’s knowing what operations the author of the problem wants you to do, and in what order. Simple, right? We use an “order of operations” rule we memorized in childhood: “Please excuse my dear Aunt Sally,” or PEMDAS, which stands for Parentheses Exponents Multiplication Division Addition Subtraction.* This handy acronym should settle any debate—except it doesn’t, because it’s not a rule at all. It’s a convention, a customary way of doing things we’ve developed only recently, and like other customs, it has evolved over time. (And even math teachers argue over order of operations.)
What proof do you have that using a left to right rule is universally true?
From my understanding It’s an agreed convention that is followed
Read what I wrote again. I already said that left to right is a convention, and that Left Associativity is a rule. As long as you obey the rule - Left Associativity - you can follow whatever convention you want (but we teach students to do left to right, because they often make mistakes with signs when they try doing it in a different order, as have several people in this thread).
that implies we could have a right to left rule
You can have a right to left convention if the rule is Right Associativity.
It’s also true that not all cultures right in the same way
Yeah, I don't know how they do Maths - if they do it the same as us or if they just flip everything back-to-front (or top to bottom - I guess they would). In either case all the rules on top stay the same once the direction is established (like I guess exponents would now be to the top left not the top right? but in any case the evaluation of an exponent would stay the same).
But here is an interesting quote from Florian Cajori in his book a history of mathematical notations
Yeah, he's referring to the conventions - such as left to right - not the rule of Left Associativity, which all the conventions must obey. For a while Lennes was doing something different - because he didn't understand Terms - and was disobeying Left Associativity, (which meant his rules were at odds with everyone else), but his rule died out within a generation of his death,. Absolutely all textbooks now obey Left Associativity, same as before Lennes came along.
Lastly here is an article that also highlights the issue
Not really. Just another person who has forgotten the rules.
"as it happens, the accepted convention says the second one is correct"
No it isn't. The Distributive Law says the first is correct (amongst 4 other rules of Maths which also say the answer is only 1). The second way they did it disobeys The Distributive Law (and 4 other rules) and is absolutely wrong.
-
It’s so we don’t have to spam brackets everywhere
No it isn't. The order of operations rules were around for several centuries before we even started using Brackets in Maths.
((((((9+2)-1)+6)-4)+7)-3)+5
It was literally never written like that
we only need parentheses when we want to deviate from the norm
That has always been the case
You're literally arguing nothing right now. THEY took the position we should have brackets defining the order in every single equation or otherwise have them as undefined TODAY. It doesn't matter when they were invented. Obviously it's never been written like that. They are the one arguing it SHOULD BE. I said that would be stupid vs following the left to right convention already established. You're getting caught up in the semantics of the wording.
What you inferred: they're saying brackets were always around and we chose left to right to avoid bracket mess.
What I was actually saying: we chose and continue to choose to keep using the left to right convention over brackets everywhere because it would be unnecessary and make things more cluttered.
And yes, that IS a position mathematicians COULD have chosen once brackets WERE invented. They could have decided we should use them in every equation for absolute clarity of order. Saying we should not do that based on tradition alone is a bad reason.
The "always been the case" argument could justify any legacy system. We don't still use Roman numerals for arithmetic just because they were traditional. Things DO change.
Ancient Greeks and Romans strongly resisted zero as a concept, viewing it as philosophically problematic. Negative numbers were even more controversial with many mathematicians into the Renaissance calling them "fictitious" or "absurd numbers." It took centuries for these to become accepted as legitimate mathematical objects.
Before Robert Recorde introduced "=" in 1557, mathematicians wrote out "is equal to" in words. Even after its introduction, many resisted it for decades, preferring verbal descriptions or other symbols.
I could go on but if you're going to argue why something shouldn't be the case, you should argue more than "it's tradition" or "we've done fine without it so far". Because they did fine with many things in mathematics until they decided they needed to change or expand it.
-
Actually, it is. Written by a PhD and used in a college course. It just happens to be distributed for free because Canada is cool like that.
The LibreTexts libraries are Powered by NICE CXone Expert and are supported by the Department of Education Open Textbook Pilot Project, the UC Davis Office of the Provost, the UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions Program
May want to work on your own reading comprehension.
It's not me who doesn't understand the difference.
The facts disagree.
You can keep saying defined all you want, it doesn't change the underlying issue that it's defined by man. In the absence of all your books (which you clearly don't understand anyway based on our discussion of unary vs binary) order of operations only exists because we all agree to it.
Actually, it is. Written by a PhD and used in a college course.
Yeah there's an issue with them having forgotten the basic rules, since they don't actually teach them (except in a remedial way). Why do you think I keep trying to bring you back to actual Maths textbooks?
May want to work on your own reading comprehension.
Nope. It's still not a textbook. Sounds more like a higher education version of Wikipedia.
The facts disagree
With you, yes.
it doesn’t change the underlying issue that it’s defined by man.
The notation is, the rules aren't.
In the absence of all your books (which you clearly don’t understand anyway based on our discussion of unary vs binary)
Says person who doesn't understand the difference between unary and binary. Apparently EVERYTHING is binary according to you (and your website).
order of operations only exists because we all agree to it
It exists whether we agree with it or not. Don't obey it, get wrong answers.
-
I’ve seen many of his videos and haven’t noticed any obvious errors.
He makes mistakes every time there's Brackets with a Coefficient. He always does a(b)=axb, instead of a(b)=(axb), hence wrong every time it follows a division.
what you reference to as “1917,”
No, he calls it that, though sometimes he also tries to claim it's an article (it isn't - it was a letter) - he never refers to Lennes by name. He also ignores what it actually says, and in fact disobeys it (the rule proposed by Lennes was to do all multiplication first, and yet he proceeds to do the division first, hence wrong answer, even though he just claimed that 1917 is the current rule).
Here's a thread about Lennes' 1917 letter, including a link to an archived copy of it.
Here's where Presh Talwalker lied about 1917
Here's a thread about The Distributive Law
Here's where Presh Talwalker disobeyed The Distributive Law (one of many times) (he does 2x3 instead of (2x3), hence gets the wrong answer). What he says is the "historical" rule in "some" textbooks, is still the rule and is used in all textbooks, he just never looked in any!
Note that, as far as I can tell, he doesn't even have any Maths qualifications. He keeps saying "I studied Maths at Harvard", and yet I can find no evidence whatsoever of what qualifications he has - I suspect he dropped out, hence why he keeps saying "I studied...". In one video he even claimed his answer was right because Google said so. I'm not kidding! He's a snake oil salesman, making money from spreading disinformation on Youtube - avoid at all cost. There are many freely-available Maths textbooks on the Internet Archive if you want to find proof of the truth (some of which have been quoted in the aforementioned thread).
Thank you very much for the detailed response! Very informative and interesting.
-
You're literally arguing nothing right now. THEY took the position we should have brackets defining the order in every single equation or otherwise have them as undefined TODAY. It doesn't matter when they were invented. Obviously it's never been written like that. They are the one arguing it SHOULD BE. I said that would be stupid vs following the left to right convention already established. You're getting caught up in the semantics of the wording.
What you inferred: they're saying brackets were always around and we chose left to right to avoid bracket mess.
What I was actually saying: we chose and continue to choose to keep using the left to right convention over brackets everywhere because it would be unnecessary and make things more cluttered.
And yes, that IS a position mathematicians COULD have chosen once brackets WERE invented. They could have decided we should use them in every equation for absolute clarity of order. Saying we should not do that based on tradition alone is a bad reason.
The "always been the case" argument could justify any legacy system. We don't still use Roman numerals for arithmetic just because they were traditional. Things DO change.
Ancient Greeks and Romans strongly resisted zero as a concept, viewing it as philosophically problematic. Negative numbers were even more controversial with many mathematicians into the Renaissance calling them "fictitious" or "absurd numbers." It took centuries for these to become accepted as legitimate mathematical objects.
Before Robert Recorde introduced "=" in 1557, mathematicians wrote out "is equal to" in words. Even after its introduction, many resisted it for decades, preferring verbal descriptions or other symbols.
I could go on but if you're going to argue why something shouldn't be the case, you should argue more than "it's tradition" or "we've done fine without it so far". Because they did fine with many things in mathematics until they decided they needed to change or expand it.
THEY took the position we should have brackets defining the order in every single equation or otherwise have them as undefined TODAY
Who's this mysterious "THEY" you are referring to, because I can assure you that the history of Maths tells you that is wrong. e.g. look in Cajori and you'll find the order of operations rules are at least 2 centuries older than the use of Brackets in Maths.,
It doesn’t matter when they were invented
The rules haven't changed since then.
They are the one arguing it SHOULD BE
...and watch Physicists and Mathematicians promptly run out of room on blackboards if they did.
You’re getting caught up in the semantics of the wording
No, you're making up things that never happened.
they’re saying brackets were always around and we chose left to right to avoid bracket mess
and that's wrong. Left to right was around before Brackets were.
we chose and continue to choose to keep using the left to right convention over brackets everywhere
and you're wrong, because that choice was made before we'd even started using Brackets in Maths, by at least a couple of centuries.
it would be unnecessary and make things more cluttered
They've always been un-necessary, unless you want to deviate from the normal order of operations.
They could have decided we should use them in every equation for absolute clarity of order
But they didn't, because we already had clarity over order, and had done for several centuries.
Saying we should not do that based on tradition alone is a bad reason.
Got nothing to do with tradition. Got no idea where you got that idea from.
Things DO change.
The order of operations rules don't, and the last change to the notation was in the 19th Century.
I could go on
and you'd still be wrong. You're heading off into completely unrelated topics now.
you should argue more than “it’s tradition” or “we’ve done fine without it so far”
I never said either of those things.
Because they did fine with many things in mathematics until they decided they needed to change or expand it
And they changed the meaning of the Division symbol sometime in the 19th Century or earlier, and everything has been settled for centuries now.
-
THEY took the position we should have brackets defining the order in every single equation or otherwise have them as undefined TODAY
Who's this mysterious "THEY" you are referring to, because I can assure you that the history of Maths tells you that is wrong. e.g. look in Cajori and you'll find the order of operations rules are at least 2 centuries older than the use of Brackets in Maths.,
It doesn’t matter when they were invented
The rules haven't changed since then.
They are the one arguing it SHOULD BE
...and watch Physicists and Mathematicians promptly run out of room on blackboards if they did.
You’re getting caught up in the semantics of the wording
No, you're making up things that never happened.
they’re saying brackets were always around and we chose left to right to avoid bracket mess
and that's wrong. Left to right was around before Brackets were.
we chose and continue to choose to keep using the left to right convention over brackets everywhere
and you're wrong, because that choice was made before we'd even started using Brackets in Maths, by at least a couple of centuries.
it would be unnecessary and make things more cluttered
They've always been un-necessary, unless you want to deviate from the normal order of operations.
They could have decided we should use them in every equation for absolute clarity of order
But they didn't, because we already had clarity over order, and had done for several centuries.
Saying we should not do that based on tradition alone is a bad reason.
Got nothing to do with tradition. Got no idea where you got that idea from.
Things DO change.
The order of operations rules don't, and the last change to the notation was in the 19th Century.
I could go on
and you'd still be wrong. You're heading off into completely unrelated topics now.
you should argue more than “it’s tradition” or “we’ve done fine without it so far”
I never said either of those things.
Because they did fine with many things in mathematics until they decided they needed to change or expand it
And they changed the meaning of the Division symbol sometime in the 19th Century or earlier, and everything has been settled for centuries now.
The "mysterious" they is HerelAm, the person I was replying to you ninny.
-
Thank you very much for the detailed response! Very informative and interesting.
No worries
-
The "mysterious" they is HerelAm, the person I was replying to you ninny.
The “mysterious” they is HerelAm, the person I was replying to you ninny
The person who couldn't even manage to get 10-1+1 correct when doing addition first
-
Actually, it is. Written by a PhD and used in a college course.
Yeah there's an issue with them having forgotten the basic rules, since they don't actually teach them (except in a remedial way). Why do you think I keep trying to bring you back to actual Maths textbooks?
May want to work on your own reading comprehension.
Nope. It's still not a textbook. Sounds more like a higher education version of Wikipedia.
The facts disagree
With you, yes.
it doesn’t change the underlying issue that it’s defined by man.
The notation is, the rules aren't.
In the absence of all your books (which you clearly don’t understand anyway based on our discussion of unary vs binary)
Says person who doesn't understand the difference between unary and binary. Apparently EVERYTHING is binary according to you (and your website).
order of operations only exists because we all agree to it
It exists whether we agree with it or not. Don't obey it, get wrong answers.
Nope. It's still not a textbook. Sounds more like a higher education version of Wikipedia.
It is though. Here's a link to buy a printed copy: https://libretexts.org/bookstore/order?math-7309
You keep mentioning textbooks but haven't actually shown any that support you. I have. I'll trust the PhD teaching a university course on the subject over the nobody on the internet who just keeps saying "trust me bro" and then being condescending while also being embarrassingly wrong.
And because I can't help it, I'll also trust Wolfram over you: Examples of binary operation on A from A×A to A include addition (+), subtraction (-), multiplication (×) and division (÷). Here, you can buy a copy of this too: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1420072218/weisstein-20
Says person who doesn't understand the difference between unary and binary.
Talking about yourself in the third person is weird. Even your nonsense about a silent "+" is really just leaving off the leading 0 in the equation 0+2. Because addition is a binary operator.
Apparently EVERYTHING is binary according to you (and your website).
Only the ones that operate on two inputs. Some examples of unary operators are factorial, absolute value, and trig functions. The laughing face when you make a fool of yourself isn't really as effective as you think it is.
But we're getting off topic again. I can't keep trying to explain the same thing to you, so I would say this has been fun, but it's been more like talking to an unusually obnoxious brick wall. Next time you want to engage with someone try being less of a prick, or at least less wrong. You're not nearly as smart as you seem to think you are.
-
Nope. It's still not a textbook. Sounds more like a higher education version of Wikipedia.
It is though. Here's a link to buy a printed copy: https://libretexts.org/bookstore/order?math-7309
You keep mentioning textbooks but haven't actually shown any that support you. I have. I'll trust the PhD teaching a university course on the subject over the nobody on the internet who just keeps saying "trust me bro" and then being condescending while also being embarrassingly wrong.
And because I can't help it, I'll also trust Wolfram over you: Examples of binary operation on A from A×A to A include addition (+), subtraction (-), multiplication (×) and division (÷). Here, you can buy a copy of this too: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1420072218/weisstein-20
Says person who doesn't understand the difference between unary and binary.
Talking about yourself in the third person is weird. Even your nonsense about a silent "+" is really just leaving off the leading 0 in the equation 0+2. Because addition is a binary operator.
Apparently EVERYTHING is binary according to you (and your website).
Only the ones that operate on two inputs. Some examples of unary operators are factorial, absolute value, and trig functions. The laughing face when you make a fool of yourself isn't really as effective as you think it is.
But we're getting off topic again. I can't keep trying to explain the same thing to you, so I would say this has been fun, but it's been more like talking to an unusually obnoxious brick wall. Next time you want to engage with someone try being less of a prick, or at least less wrong. You're not nearly as smart as you seem to think you are.
It is though. Here’s a link to buy a printed copy:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! They print it out when someone places an order!
You keep mentioning textbooks but haven’t actually shown any that support you. I have
No you haven't. You've shown 2 websites, both updated by random people.
I’ll trust the PhD teaching a university course on the subject
I already pointed out to you that they DON'T teach order of operations at University. It's taught in high school. Dude on page you referred to was teaching Set theory, not order of operations.
over the nobody on the internet
Don't know who you're referring to. I'm a high school Maths teacher, hence the dozens of textbooks on the topic.
Talking about yourself in the third person is weird
Proves I'm not weird then doesn't it.
Even your nonsense about a silent “+”
You call what's in textbooks nonsense? That explains a lot!
is really just leaving off the leading 0 in the equation 0+2
And yet the textbook says nothing of the kind. If I had 2+3, which is really +2+3 (see above textbook), do I, according to you, have to write 0+2+0+3? Enquiring minds want to know. And do I have to put another plus in front of the zero, as per the textbook, +0+2+0+3
Because addition is a binary operator
No it isn't
Only the ones that operate on two inputs.
Now you're getting it. Multiply and divide take 2 inputs, add and subtract take 1.
Some examples of unary operators are factorial, absolute value, and trig functions.
Actually none of those are operators. The first 2 are grouping symbols (like brackets, exponents, and vinculums), the last is a function (it was right there in the name). The only unary operators are plus and minus.
I can’t keep trying to explain the same thing to you
You very nearly got it that time though!
at least less wrong
Again, it's not me who's wrong.
-
Help Mikayla Raines get justice! Make noise and let the press know about Reddit safegaurding r/saveafoxsnark even after a poor innocent women commited suicide!
Technology
2
-
Child Welfare Experts Horrified by Mattel's Plans to Add ChatGPT to Toys After Mental Health Concerns for Adult Users
Technology
1
-
-
-
-
-
New Orleans used Minority Report-like facial recognition software to monitor citizens for crime suspects: Report
Technology
1
-
