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
[–] 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