710
I dunno (piefed.cdn.blahaj.zone)
submitted 9 months ago by [M] to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
756 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

They did the joke wrong. To do it right you need to use the ÷ symbol. Because people never use that after they learn fractions, people treat things like a + b ÷ c + d as

a + b
-----
c + d

Or (a + b) ÷ (c + d) when they should be treating it as a + (b ÷ c) + d.

That's the most common one of these "troll math" tricks. Because notating as

a + b + d
    -
    c

Is much more common and useful. So people get used to grouping everything around the division operator as if they're in parentheses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    Or
    12 / 2(6)
    And trying to argue this is 36.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago* (20 children)

    Now that's a good troll math thing because it gets really deep into the weeds of mathematical notation. There isn't one true order of operations that is objectively correct, and on top of that, that's hardly the way most people would write that. As in, if you wrote that by hand, you wouldn't use the / symbol. You'd either use ÷ or a proper fraction.

    It's a good candidate for nerd sniping.

    Personally, I'd call that 36 as written given the context you're saying it in, instead of calling it 1. But I'd say it's ambiguous and you should notate in a way to avoid ambiguities. Especially if you're in the camp of multiplication like a(b) being different from ab and/or a × b.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
    load more comments (20 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The P in PEMDAS means to solve everything within parentheses first; there is no "distribution" step or rule that says multiplying without a visible operator other than parentheses comes first. So yes, 36 is valid here. It's mostly because PEMDAS never shows up in the same context as this sort of multiplication or large fractions

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    The P in PEMDAS means to solve everything within parentheses first

    and without a(b+c)=(ab+ac), now solve (ab+ac)

    there is no “distribution” step or rule

    It's a LAW of Maths actually, The Distributive Law.

    that says multiplying without a visible operator

    It's not "Multiplying", it's Distributing, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)

    So yes, 36 is valid here

    No it isn't. To get 36 you have disobeyed The Distributive Law, thus it is a wrong answer

    It’s mostly because

    people like you try to gaslight others that there's no such thing as The Distributive Law

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Are you under the impression that atomizing your opponents statements and making a comment about each part individually without addressing the actual point (how those facts fit together) is a good debate tactic? Because it seems like all you've done is confuse yourself about what I was saying and make arguments that don't address it. Never mind that some of those micro-rebuttals aren't even correct.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    addressing the actual point (how those facts fit together)

    I did address the actual point - see Maths textbooks

    all you’ve done is confuse yourself

    I'm not confused at all. I'm the one who knows the difference between Distribution and Multiplication.

    what I was saying

    You lied about there being no such thing as "the Distribution step" (Brackets), proven wrong by the textbooks

    make arguments that don’t address it.

    Textbooks talking about The Distributive Law totally addresses your lie that no such step exists.

    Never mind that some of those micro-rebuttals aren’t even correct

    You think Maths textbooks aren't correct?? 😂

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I have said why this style of debate is bad in greater detail here: https://lemmy.world/post/39377635/21030374

    But to make a pointless effort to address your actual point, yes distribution exists, no it is not a step in PE(MD)(AS). Again, you have not understood my point because you categorically fail to engage with any argument. I don't think you even understand what it means to do so. I will not respond further to either thread.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    I have said why this style of debate is bad in greater detail here: https://lemmy.world/post/39377635/21030374

    Which I debunked here

    no it is not a step in PE(MD)(AS)

    So... you're saying the "P" step in PEMDAS isn't a step in PEMDAS?? This is hilarious given you were just talking about contradictions 😂

    Again, you have not understood my point

    Maybe because saying the "P" step in PEMDAS isn't a step in PEMDAS makes no sense at all 😂

    you categorically fail to engage with any argument.

    No, I comprehensively debunked all of your points and deflections. 😂

    I don’t think you even understand what it means to do so

    says person who keeps avoiding the textbook screenshots and worked examples proving them wrong

    I will not respond further to either thread

    Yay! Don't let the door hit you on the way out 😂

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Parentheses means evaluating the things inside the parentheses you nimrod

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    Parentheses means evaluating the things inside the parentheses you nimrod

    Only if you're still in Elementary school. How old are you anyway? Here's a high school Algebra book, you know, after students have been taught The Distributive Law...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Well, now you might be running into syntax issues instead of PEMDAS issues depending on what they're confused about. If it's 12 over 2*6, it's 1. If it's 12 ÷ 2 x 6, it's 36.

    A lot of people try a bunch of funky stuff to represent fractions in text form (like mixing spaces and no spaces) when they should just be treating it like a programmer has to, and use parenthesis if it's a complex fraction in basic text form.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    Treat a + b/c + d as a + b/(c + d) I can almost understand, I was guilty of doing that in school with multiplication, but auto-parenthesising the first part is really crazy take, imo

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Because people never use that after they learn fractions,

    Yes they do, because not every division is a fraction

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Take it up with Berkeley then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Take it up with Berkeley then

    What for? You're only the second person ever to have quoted him. You're not the first person to refuse to look in Maths textbooks though 🙄

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Take it up with Berkeley.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Take it up with Berkeley

    Says person refusing to look in Maths textbooks 😂

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I cannot stress this enough. If you have a problem with that, contact the author or Berkeley, not me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I cannot stress this enough. If you have a problem with that, contact the author or Berkeley, not me

    I cannot stress this enough - look in Maths textbooks, not random University blogs 😂

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Tell them, not me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Tell them, not me

    You're the one commenting without reading Maths textbooks

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Go tell Berkeley I did that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    You can stop humoring this broken robot. Especially when the context is 'yeah I already said this textbook is wrong, but I am better than you because you need to read this textbook.'

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    They seem to believe that and on the 8th day God made the one true objective order of operations that all humans use and agree on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Except for that time the definition of division changed 130 years ago. Which is not a rule! It's notation, or syntax, or possibly sometimes a rule. Whichever one lets them sneer hardest.

    I tried explaining RPN to them a year ago. They still insist there's parentheses in it. Today they called it an "app."

    Dogmatic patience vampire is still trying to bait me into further wasted effort.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Wowww. Insisting that they're good at math. I distinctly remember learning that RPN doesn't need parentheses in college.

    reverse Polish calculators do not need expressions to be parenthesized

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

    But, you know, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Someone probably put that there who hasn't opened a math textbook.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Oh of course. The sky isn't blue unless that's written in a maths textbook.

    And if you look up and see stars, it's still blue, because it's written in a maths textbook! Are you saying a teacher could be wrong?!, smug emoji, crying emoji, roll-eyes emoji?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent