Ok, then explain prefix and postfix, where these conventions don’t apply
The conventions don’t apply, the rules still apply. Maths notation and the rules of Maths aren’t the same thing.
How can these be rules of math when they didn’t universally apply?
The rules do universally apply 🙄
The order of operations tells us how to interpret an equation without rearranging it
Yep, and you showed you don’t know the rules 🙄
When you pick a different convention, you need to rearrange it to get the same answer
Not necessarily, though it makes it easier (but also leads a lot of people to make mistakes with signs, as you found out 😂 )
What you did was rearrange the equation
To show you how to correctly do “Multiplication first”. 🙄
which you can only do if you are already following a specific convention
Which you didn’t, hence why you ended up with a wrong answer. 🙄 There is no textbook which says put the multiplication in Brackets if doing “Multiplication first”, none.
because the conventions are not laws of mathematics, they are conventions
And putting the Multiplication inside Brackets isn’t a convention anywhere 🙄
They obey the laws of math. Conventions aren’t laws of math, they’re conventions
Yep, and you ignored both, hence your wrong answer 🙄
And a quick Google search will tell you that not everyone puts juxtaposition at a higher precedent than multiplication
And a quick look in the Google support forum will show you many people telling them that is wrong, and Google just closes the incident 🙄
it’s a convention
No it isn’t. It’s against the rules. 🙄 Again, you won’t find this alleged “convention” in any Maths textbook
As long as people are using the same convention, they’ll agree on an answer and that answer is correct
Unless they disobeyed the rules, in which case they are all wrong 🙄
You can be mean all you like, that doesn’t change the nature of conventions
And you can be as ignorant of the rules and conventions of Maths as much as you want, and it’s not going to change that your answer is wrong 🙄
Yeah, you clearly don’t even know what a convention is, and what are math conventions and math “rules” as you put it.
You’re wrong, and even a 2 minute Google search would show you that and explain why. I’m done being Google for you when you’re not willing to Google it yourself.
In mathematics and computer programming, the order of operations is a collection of conventions about which arithmetic operations to perform first in order to evaluate a given mathematical expression
What’s that? You don’t trust Wikipedia?
Ok, you’ve yet to explain why notations like prefix and postfix dont need these “rules”.
If they were rules of mathematics **itself** how could they only apply to certain notations?
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.
Don’t bother mate. Even if you corner them on something, they absolutely will not budge.
I like many others brought up calculators and how common basic calculators only evaluate from left to right. They contend that this is not true and that calculators have always been able to obey order of operations. I even linked the manuals of twodifferent calculators which both had this operation.
He asserted (without evidence) that the first does not operate in this way (even though the manual says that you must re-order some expressions so that bracketed sub-expressions come first). He then characterised the second as a “chain calculator” for “niche purposes”. So he admits it works left-to-right, but still will not admit that he was wrong about his claim.
This calculator thing is not central to the discussion on order of operations, but it goes to show: you will not convince him of anything no matter what the evidence is.
By the way, after reading a few of his comments, I believe I can summarise his whackadoodle understanding if you want to continue tilting at windmills: he fundamentally cannot separate mathematics from the notation. Thus he distinguishes many things which are the same but which are written differently.
He calls a×b multiplication and ab a product. These are, of course, the exact same thing. Within a mathematical expression, the implicit multiplication in ab can, by some conventions, have a higher precedence than does the explicit multiplication in a×b, and he has taken that to mean that they are fundamentally different.
He thinks that a(b+c)=ab+bc is something to do with notation, not a fundamental relationship between multiplication and addition. (This is not a difference for him though). This he calls the “distributive law” which he distinguishes from the “distributive property” (I will say that no author would distinguish those two terms, because they’re just too easily confused. And many authors explicitly say that one is also known as the other). He says that a×(b+c) = ab + bc is an instance of the “distributive property”.
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
The conventions don’t apply, the rules still apply. Maths notation and the rules of Maths aren’t the same thing.
The rules do universally apply 🙄
Yep, and you showed you don’t know the rules 🙄
Not necessarily, though it makes it easier (but also leads a lot of people to make mistakes with signs, as you found out 😂 )
To show you how to correctly do “Multiplication first”. 🙄
Which you didn’t, hence why you ended up with a wrong answer. 🙄 There is no textbook which says put the multiplication in Brackets if doing “Multiplication first”, none.
And putting the Multiplication inside Brackets isn’t a convention anywhere 🙄
Yep, and you ignored both, hence your wrong answer 🙄
And a quick look in the Google support forum will show you many people telling them that is wrong, and Google just closes the incident 🙄
No it isn’t. It’s against the rules. 🙄 Again, you won’t find this alleged “convention” in any Maths textbook
Unless they disobeyed the rules, in which case they are all wrong 🙄
And you can be as ignorant of the rules and conventions of Maths as much as you want, and it’s not going to change that your answer is wrong 🙄
Yeah, you clearly don’t even know what a convention is, and what are math conventions and math “rules” as you put it.
You’re wrong, and even a 2 minute Google search would show you that and explain why. I’m done being Google for you when you’re not willing to Google it yourself.
Says person who actually doesn’t know the difference, as per Maths textbooks
oh no! you better start contacting all the textbook publishers and tell them that all Maths textbooks are wrong 😂
Even a 2 minute Google search will bring up Maths textbooks which prove that Google is wrong 🙄
Maths teachers don’t use Google - that’s what Maths textbooks are for
says person who was unwilling to use Google to find Maths textbooks 🙄
Wikipedia
What’s that? You don’t trust Wikipedia?
Ok, you’ve yet to explain why notations like prefix and postfix dont need these “rules”.
If they were rules of mathematics **itself** how could they only apply to certain notations?
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
The site that you just quoted which is proven wrong by Maths textbooks, THAT Wikipedia?? 🤣🤣🤣
Umm, they do need the rules! 😂
They don’t, they apply to all notations 🙄
I love how confident you are about something you clearly have no knowledge of.
Adorable.
Well, you made a good effort. At least if we’re judging by word count.
says person confidently proving they have no knowledge of it to a Maths teacher 🤣
from Maths textbooks, which for you still stands at 0
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
Don’t bother mate. Even if you corner them on something, they absolutely will not budge.
I like many others brought up calculators and how common basic calculators only evaluate from left to right. They contend that this is not true and that calculators have always been able to obey order of operations. I even linked the manuals of two different calculators which both had this operation.
He asserted (without evidence) that the first does not operate in this way (even though the manual says that you must re-order some expressions so that bracketed sub-expressions come first). He then characterised the second as a “chain calculator” for “niche purposes”. So he admits it works left-to-right, but still will not admit that he was wrong about his claim.
This calculator thing is not central to the discussion on order of operations, but it goes to show: you will not convince him of anything no matter what the evidence is.
By the way, after reading a few of his comments, I believe I can summarise his whackadoodle understanding if you want to continue tilting at windmills: he fundamentally cannot separate mathematics from the notation. Thus he distinguishes many things which are the same but which are written differently.
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