Yeah sure
A “teacher” who doesn’t know that all lessons are simplifications that get corrected at a higher level, and confidentiality refers to children’s textbook as an infallible source of college level information.
A “teacher” incapable of differentiating between rules of a convention and the laws of mathematics.
A “teacher” incapable of looking up information on notations of their own specialization, and synthesizing it into coherent response.
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
Man, this whole post has been embarrassing for you. Oof.
I can’t help but notice youve once again failed to address prefix and postfix notations.
And that you’ve not actually made any argument other than “nuh uh”
Not to mention the other threads you’ve been in. Yikes.
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 🙄
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 🤔🤔🤔
To a “maths teacher”
Yeah sure
A “teacher” who doesn’t know that all lessons are simplifications that get corrected at a higher level, and confidentiality refers to children’s textbook as an infallible source of college level information.
A “teacher” incapable of differentiating between rules of a convention and the laws of mathematics.
A “teacher” incapable of looking up information on notations of their own specialization, and synthesizing it into coherent response.
Uh huh, sounds totally legit
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 😂
A high school Maths textbook most certainly is an infallible source of “college level” information, given it contains the exact same rules 😂
Well, that’s you! 😂 The one who quoted Wikipedia and not a Maths textbook 😂
You again 😂 Wikipedia isn’t a Maths textbook
Man, this whole post has been embarrassing for you. Oof.
I can’t help but notice youve once again failed to address prefix and postfix notations.
And that you’ve not actually made any argument other than “nuh uh”
Not to mention the other threads you’ve been in. Yikes.
We can all tell you’re not a maths teacher.
Nope. I’m the only one who has backed up what they’ve said with Maths textbooks 🙄
What is it that you want addressed?
Backed up by Maths textbooks 🙄
Says person who actually isn’t a Maths teacher, hence no textbooks 😂
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 🙄
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 🤔🤔🤔