Nope, that’s wrong

You think Maths textbooks are wrong?? 😂

See https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=10%2F2(2%2B3) for reference

See Maths textbooks for reference 😂

Probably the part where you said how we write expressions is different from the underlying maths

Yep, the underlying Maths is the same everywhere, because the rules are universal, but different countries have different notations, it’s still the same Maths

Because words mean things

And you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between “notation” and “rules”

Post picture declaiming brackets as a multiplication symbol,

What do you think the “B” step in BEDMAS is for?? 😂

proceeds to solve the problem to the exact same solution using distributive law to

Distribute the coefficient over the terms inside the brackets

Fucking genius

Says someone who can’t tell the difference between Distributing, 2(1+3)=(2+6), and Multiplication, 2x(1+3)=2x4, 1/(2+6)=(1/8), 1/2x4=2

Ohhh, so there is a difference between what’s in math(s) books and the underlying laws of reality

No, and I have no idea where you got that idea! 😂

In mathematics, a product is the result of multiplication,

or Factoristion, ab+ac=a(b+c) <== a Product of a and (b+c)

I mean, I don’t like to argue about this

And yet here you are arguing with someone who is and is a Maths teacher

there is an implied multiplication there.

Nope! It’s a Term/Product. There’s no such thing as “implied multiplication” - you won’t find it in any Maths textbook

Which you said changed 130 years ago

The definition of Division changed more than 130 years ago. a+b/c+d originally meant (a+b)/(c+d), but that limited you to one division per expression, so they changed the definition to be a+b/c+d=a+(b/c)+d, which brought it into line with all the other operators - the underlying Maths never changed, just the way we write expressions did

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

isn’t a Maths textbook

In mathematics and computer programming, the order of operations is a collection of conventions

and rules 🙄 Haven’t even got past the first sentence you quoted and it’s already wrong

These conventions

Rules

but some programming languages and calculators

May disobey the rules and give wrong answers, like Texas Instruments calculators

With math, you can invent your own notation if you like

Yep, but you cannot invent your own rules 🙄

This is done often.

No it isn’t.

And if it makes sense, you can also change the order of operation

No you can’t, or you get wrong answers, like Texas Instruments calculators

The notation you learn in school is just a common one, but other notations are equally valid and can be useful

But the rules are universal. You seem to be confusing notation with the rules

Therefore this kind of question is not a pure math question

Yes it is

what kind of conventions or notations people want to use

We can see for ourselves quite clearly what notation they have used. There’s no mystery or debate about it

The context is what allows the math question to have a single answer

The rules of Maths is what gives it a single answer - that’s what they’re for! 😂

The rules of math itself are much more fundamental and they don’t care about how people decided to write formulas down.

Yep, one of which is The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac).

Yes it does

Says person who can’t cite a single example of it depending on the language 🙄

Sorry, your realm does not extend into English

Sorry, it most definitely does when it comes to how English is used in Maths

It’s tangential to mathematics, but it isn’t mathematics

The way we say Mathematical things is 100% Maths

There’s absolutely nothing you can improve on?

I can improve some badly written textbooks. Probably every Maths teacher can.

Has a teacher ever been wrong (or just uninformed) about a topic in a subject they teach?

Yes, ones who haven’t looked in the textbook which seems to be the case with a lot of unqualified U.S. Maths teachers

Does every English teacher know the content of every book?

Probably the content of every book they teach 🙄

No one knows everything about a subject

Teachers do. It comes from teaching the same thing year after year after year

Anyway, this isn’t your subject!

Yes it is! 😂

This is English, not math

It’s Mathematical English

Do you see any formulas, proofs, or equations in these comments?

Do you see words in Maths textbooks? And the definitions of them? 🙄

What don’t you get?

Why you keep insisting that Maths textbooks are wrong

It being in an algebra textbook does not limit it to the realm of algebra

And NOT being in any arithmetic book means it’s not part of Arithmetic 🙄

Numbers are in that textbook too

Yep, both Arithmetic and Algebra, as opposed to a(b+c) which is only in Algebra books.

If I’m wrong, I’d love to see the citation

Says person who can’t cite any Arithmetic books it’s in 🙄

Anyway, unless you provide that proof at the end there

Already gave it in the previous post… which you didn’t look at 🙄

You already said that to me

And you’re still ignoring it

Because division is multiplication

No it isn’t.

and subtraction is addition

And you still have to do both

2/2 is the same as 2*½

They’re equal in value, they’re not the same

2-2 is the same as 2+(-2)

You got that the wrong way around. Brackets have only been used in Maths for a few centuries now

Well, as I already said multiple times: Division = Multiplication

And you were wrong every time you said it.

therefore they would be doing them together

Not if you left them out of the mnemonic and they didn’t know when to do them

You’re not listening to me

Says person refusing to look in Maths textbooks 🙄

found the Commonwealther

Or more precisely, the non-USer 😜

I’m a software developer

So am I

adding extra parenthesis often adds clarity

Everyone I’ve seen add Brackets to it has done so in the WRONG place and given WRONG answers. Again this is an issue of programmers not checking the rules of Maths

that do not apply to what I’m talking about

The rules of Maths always apply to all Maths

https://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/order5.pdf

I already said he was wrong about that. Quoting him saying it doesn’t change that he’s wrong about it

So if I see something like “5-(2+4)” I will just remove the subtraction operator and call it a day

Nope. Never said anything of the sort.

Smartman on the internet said so

No I didn’t, but nice try at a strawman 😂

not everyone on the internet is a native english speaker. Everyone but you knew what was meant.

There is no such thing as “implied multiplication” in any language. They are called Terms/Products in whatever language that book is using.

But factorised terms are multiplications,

No, they’re Distribution done in the Brackets step, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), now solve (ab+ac)

a(b+c) = a*(b+c)

Nope! a(b+c)=(ab+ac). 1/a(b+c)=1/(ab+ac), but 1/ax(b+c)=(b+c)/a.

23+25=16

(2x3+2x5) actually, or you’ll get the wrong answer when it follows a Division sign. See previous point

Do you think you’re above them?

You know we’re talking about Year 7 Maths, right? 😂

Elementary school teaches you the fundamentals to your future education

but NOT The Distributive Law, which is taught in high school, in Algebra

I didn’t say you were wrong about math

You said “I don’t think you’re right”, and followed it up with “Ill informed”, to a Maths teacher.

I said you were wrong about English that is used in relation to math

And you were wrong about that too

Clearly this isn’t a strong suit of yours

What you mean is you clearly can’t rebut any of it

However, stop acting like you know everything

I know everything about high school Maths - I teach it

you clearly don’t

There you go again calling a Maths teacher wrong about Maths 😂

You’re using some very strange logic to argue you’re right

You think Maths textbooks use very strange logic??

it doesn’t make any sense

read this then. Contains Maths textbooks