💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱

especially for mixed division and multiplication, have changed over time

and yet, have not changed since he died. 😂 Keep going - you’re on the right track but the rabbit hole is deeper

Supporting my point that these “rules” are not in fact rules of maths

says person who doesn’t know the difference between rules and conventions, and thus does not support what you are saying 😂

instead rules of mathematicians

who proved them, yes

associative relations which obey the distributive law

Property, not Law, yes

may break one set of rules of precedence

there’s only one set! 😂

those are rules made by mathematicians not by the fundamental working of the universe

says person failing to give a single example of such 😂

How do I know this?

Same way you “know” everything - you just make it up as you go along, but never can produce any evidence to support you 😂

at the time he was writing, there was “no agreement” over the order in which to perform divisions and multiplications if both occur in an expression

Yep, and why was that, or have you already forgotten the assignment? 😂

So here’s a question for you: do you agree with Cajori that at one time there was no agreement over which order to perform multiplications and divisions, or not?

Of course, and I, unlike you, know exactly what he was talking about 😂

do you then agree that, for there to be agreement now

There isn’t, given he was talking about conventions, and now, same as then, different people use different conventions, but all of them obey the rules 🙄

that change must be through rules created by mathematicians

from proof of same

rules given to us from the universe itself?

NOW you’re getting it!

Because the universe certainly didn’t change in the meantime, did it?

Nope, and neither have the rules 😂

If you don’t agree then that would rather expose your fetishisation of textbooks as hollow trolling, of course.

And, yet I did agree, sorry to spoil your fun. 🤣🤣🤣 BTW Cajori isn’t a textbook, in case you didn’t notice 😂

You said every single post is wrong - present tense

Nope! I covered the past as well Mr. Abysmal Reading Comprehension

There is no “=” button on the Sinclair Executive, and you aren’t saying the +=

and what’s that second symbol in +=?? 😂

you aren’t saying the += button means “equals”,

Yes I am! 😂 I told you exactly when it’s interpreted as a plus, and exactly when it is interpreted as an equals 🙄

you’re saying it omits the manipulation of the (non existent) stack

No, I’m saying omitting that keypress will evaluate a+bxc, instead of (a+b)xc, because it does have a stack. It’s not complicated. All my calculators work the same way, even the one I have that doesn’t have brackets keys (though according to you it doesn’t have a stack if it doesn’t have brackets keys 😂 )

The part where you haven’t proven anything, of course

Well, that part never happened, so…😂

An example in the manual of it obeying order of operations in violation of right to left execution

says person proving they didn’t read it! 😂 Go ahead and type in a+=bxc+=, I’ll wait.

Also…

Oh look. it remembers the division whilst we enter other things! I wonder how it does that?? 🤣🤣🤣 And look, it remembers four numbers, not, you know limited to three numbers like you insisted was it’s limit! 🤣🤣🤣

Also, (a+b)/(c+d) has three operands, and somehow it manages to remember all of them. I wonder how it does that, considering you said it could only take one operand! 🤣🤣🤣

The specifications saying how much stack memory it had

You know the stack isn’t hardware, right? Go ahead and find any calculator manual which specifies how big the stack is. I’ll wait 😂

A video of someone using it to show it using order of operations in violation of right to left execution

says person who hasn’t provided a video of anyone entering 2+=3x4+= and it going “left to right”. Also, you have failed to explain how it is possible to do a(b+c)+d(e+f) without brackets and without splitting it up

An emulator where you can see the same

You’re arguing about calculators that precede the internet, and you’re expecting an emulator to exist for it?! 🤣🤣🤣 But sure, go ahead and find an emulator for you calculator, type in 2+=3x4+=, and tell me what you get. I’ll wait 🤣🤣🤣

You have none of that.

says person who has none of anything 🤣🤣🤣

Instead you have an example in the manual where the calculator executes strictly left to right,

No it doesn’t! 🤣🤣🤣

but you have said, without evidence

says person, who said without evidence that it goes strictly left to right

that a button on the calculator is preventing us from seeing its normal behaviour

No idea what you’re talking about. It explicitly shows you how it works 🙄

You can’t evaluate that expression without splitting it up? I can.

and yet, you have still failed to explain how 🙄

Just fuckin’ evaluate it normally!

Normally is a(b+c)+d(e+f)=, but sure, go ahead and explain to us how you can evaluate that “normally” without brackets and without splitting it up. I’ll wait, again 🤣🤣🤣

That sentence is talking about the calculator’s capability

which is limited because no brackets keys.

my unskilled friend

says person who claims you can do a(b+c)+d(e+f)= without brackets and without splitting it up, but sure, go ahead, and tell us how we can do that oh master genius of the universe - we’re all waiting for your almighty instruction! 🤣🤣🤣

Brackets are notation; RPN doesn’t use them

and so is the missing + in 2+3, and yet we know it’s there, which you have acknowledged you saw in the textbook 🤣🤣🤣

What you’ve said by implication is that a calculator doesn’t need buttons for brackets in order to calculate a complex expression

Nope, I’ve explicitly said they are required, for complex equations, as per the manual telling you that you can’t do it, unless you split it up, liar

So, we understand it’s not a lack of brackets buttons holding back the Sinclair Cambridge

says person who has still not said how to magically do it without brackets and without splitting it up. We are still awaiting your almighty instruction master genius 🤣🤣🤣

What is holding them back then, is lack of

Brackets

Bet you’ll deflect

says person still deflecting from how to magically do a(b+c)+d(e+f)= without brackets and without splitting it up

If you’ve established it, you’d have evidence in the form of one of the four bullet points above

Yep, point 1. I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong, yet again 🤣🤣🤣

I’d write it out in rpn

Is it an RPN calculator? No it isn’t Mr. deflection

You’re saying that example tells you what would happen when the += key was not pressed a second time?

Nope, it’s right there in the manual that pressing it a second time puts it in brackets, and I’ve asked you, oh master genius of which we are not worthy, what answer it would give if we don’t press it a second time. Not complicated, and yet you still avoid answering 🤣🤣🤣

Do explain how an example tells you what happens in a situation other than the one in the example

Yes, because I want you to explain it. I already know what answer it’s going to give, and you do too, which is why you’re avoiding answering 🤣🤣🤣

Nope, still not a proof of anything except that, in that example, the calculator executes from left to right.

No it doesn’t! It puts (a+b) on the stack whilst we type out the rest of it, duuuhhh!! 🤣🤣🤣

You don’t teach them that ab means a×b?

NOW you’re getting it! We teach them that ab=(axb), as I have been saying all along 🤣🤣🤣 You know, like in this textbook…

“That’s pro–” oh do be quiet

says person deflecting form the fact that Products and “implied multiplication” aren’t the same thing, oh Mr. just Google it to see how it works 😂

I just told you I don’t care what you call it

says person who apparently doesn’t care if I call a horse a unicorn, even though we know unicorns don’t exist

and you told me it doesn’t exist

Yep, hence why you won’t find it in any Maths textbooks 🙄

You did not say “we teach this concept, but with a different name”.

Correct. We don’t teach them about the mythical “implied multiplication” that gets mentioned by people who got the wrong answer 😂

All evidence suggests you aren’t actually capable of understanding the difference between a concept and the name for that concept.

says person that evidence suggests can’t tell the difference between a horse and a unicorn, nor the difference between 1 and 16 😂

find a manual with an example of it behaving differently

You already provided one! 🤣🤣🤣

if you press 2+3+×5, it behaves exactly as the example in the Sinclair Executive manual

Yep! Which is (2+3)x5, and not 2+3x5. 🙄 The manual even explicitly tells you that is how to do an expression with one set of brackets, and yet the Windows calculator returns that answer when you enter an expression without brackets. 🙄 It’s hilarious that now you’re even proving yourself wrong 🤣🤣🤣

So I’m pretty sure according to you that proves that it obeys the order of operations, right?

Nope! 2+3x4=14, not 20 🤣🤣🤣 (2+3)x4=20, which is the answer the Windows calculator gives when you type in 2+3x4.

I washed myself recently

says proven liar - I knew that was Projection on your part🤣🤣🤣

Well, it would be a guess

Hence proof that you don’t understand Maths nor calculators 🙄

That’s all you have, a guess

Nope. I have a calculator which behaves the exact same way 🙄

So why does ms calc work in the exact same way as an immediate execution calculator?

you know they have Standard in the name, and that’s definitely not Standard, right?? 😂

it’s not anywhere else in the manual

It’s right there in the manual that you have to do that second press to put it in brackets 🙄

And one project manager overseeing the behaviour, yes.

and yet, all different parts behaving in different ways. Sounds like the Project Manager needs to get sacked! 😂

I know you haven’t worked out where the brackets go!

says person who hasn’t read the book, and thus, apparently, doesn’t know how they did it before we started using brackets 🤣🤣🤣

The contents of the book day nothing about the “rules” only about the symbols

says person proving they didn’t read it. Who woulda thought you might refuse to read something that would prove you wrong. 🙄

In general, responding to a question with “you haven’t read enough” is, indeed, deflection

says person revealing they don’t know what deflection means either 🙄

a sign you can’t answer

I can answer if you go ahead and book some online tutoring with me to cover the history behind the comment.

If you could, you would! Simple

It’s not my job to educate you dude, unless you book some online tutoring with me, in which case it is my job. I gave you a book which answers it, for free, in extreme detail, and you lied about what it even contains, cos you never even looked at it, simple.

Not, according to you

Which part of “every single post” do you have trouble comprehending? Honestly dude, need to go back to school and learn to read 🙄

You underlined some crap in the manuals that doesn’t mean what you said it meant

= doesn’t mean equals??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Why’d you bring up your calculator if you don’t actually want to talk about it?

Which part of you’ve been proven wrong so there’s nothing further to discuss didn’t you understand? 🙄 See above about learning to read

Are not necessary to evaluate such expressions.

says person contradicting the manual which says you cannot do it 🤣🤣🤣🤣

but sure, go ahead and tell us how you can do a simple calculation that has multiple brackets, but without brackets, and without splitting it up, I’ll wait 🤣🤣🤣

You can use a calculator that uses RPN.

Yes, a calculator where the brackets are built-in, unlike this calculator 🙄

but was not available on mass market models because… it requires

Brackets

Now do you get why pocket calculators had no stack?

says person ignoring that we’ve already established that they did have a stack. Dude, you’re just going in circles.

you have no explanation for why the calculator could not perform the expression without splitting it, since bracket keys are not necessary to do so

says person who has yet to show how it can be done without brackets, since it can’t be done without brackets. 🙄 a(b+c)+d(e+f) is the example from the manual - go ahead and tell us how you can do it without brackets and without splitting it up.

exists in the use of the += button - is never discussed in the manual.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAH! (deep breath) HAHAHAHAA! It’s right there in the examples! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

you just made it up

says person making up that the lack of brackets keys is somehow not the reason you can’t do expressions with multiple brackets in them, even though they can’t come up with a way to do so 🤣🤣🤣

you’ve been called out on

nothing. You still haven’t come up with a way to do an expression with multiple brackets on a calculator that has no brackets. How can I do a(b+c)+d(e+f) on a calculator with no brackets, and GO! 🤣🤣🤣

You could get out of all this by just admitting that the Sinclair Executive had no stack and operates from left to right.

the proof is right there in the example that it doesn’t 🙄 A fact which you still haven’t admitted to

Sure there is.

says person unable to produce any Maths textbook that it’s in, because there isn’t any such thing

What you mean is, you prefer not to use the term “implicit multiplication”

No, I mean there is literally no such thing, hence why it’s not in any Maths textbooks

if you google the term, you can find the definition

If you Google unicorns and fairies you can find them as well, but you won’t find them in any Science textbooks either.

like a mathematician

exactly what I did, unless you think there are Mathematicians who would entertain discussion about fairies being real beyond “there’s no such thing”?

In your imaginary classroom you can make your poor students use whatever terminology you like

We don’t use terminology with things we don’t teach them. Do you think some teachers teach their students about unicorns and fairies being real?

I, and the rest of the internet, can use the terminology we agree upon.

Yes, delusional people can agree upon their delusions, no disagreement from me there! 🤣🤣🤣

Read to the end of the comment before shooting off your comment, and you wouldn’t be such an embarrassment.

No embarrassment from me - I’ve proven everything in the comment wrong.

• they don’t emulate scientific calculators

• they don’t emulate basic four-function calculators

In both cases they just give wrong answers

I have never used Microsoft Maths Solver but it bears no resemblance to a calculator so I don’t care

I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong - all software calculators (MathSolver wasn’t the only one I discussed, which you would’ve known had you bothered reading it), somehow bear no resemblance to actual calculators, got it. Been telling you that all along BTW 🤣🤣🤣

You still haven’t come up with a good explanation

which part didn’t you understand in different programmers work on different parts?

And honestly, I think it’s disgusting that you never wash yourself.

No idea what you’re talking about, must be another case of Projection.

Do you not remember that there were two manuals?

Which part did you not understand in the second one was a chain calculator? You’re going round in circles again

Either way, you have no explanation

I already explained dude. Saying I didn’t doesn’t magically make it disappear.

Try and find one that gives an example of typing in a + b x c and getting a+bc. You can’t.

Umm, the first one does, as I already pointed out 🤣🤣🤣 Guess what happens you you omit the circled keypress…

if people have been using these (“niche!!!1”) calculators for decades

Go ahead and see if you can find any engineers using them. I’ll wait

The only reason you must do so is to pass high school maths

and for planes to not fall out of the sky

The goal of the game is for you to put the brackets in, OK?

You know the order of operations rules predate use of Brackets in Maths by many centuries, right? How do you think they knew what to do, without brackets? I’ll wait 🤣🤣🤣

You put the word “smart” in your name,

says person proving how often they make wrong assumptions. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 You could’ve just asked me about it, but no, you literally never check facts first, just launch into provably wrong made up statements 🤣🤣🤣

so I’m hoping you’re smart enough to work it out!

Person it refers to agrees with me - who woulda thought?? 🤣🤣🤣

answer the question, deflecter :)

I haven’t deflected. I told you to go read up on the history of it and you would discover what was being talked about. Since you apparently don’t know how to use Google either, here’s a link for you

you said that something never happens

happens - present tense

which, in fact, has happened

happened - past tense. Even you wrote that in different tenses 🤣🤣🤣 I’ll take that as another admission that you were wrong then

I assume you’d really agree that I am never wrong - right?

Every single post you make is wrong! You are continuously wrong all the time, and I’m guessing always have been wrong as well 🤣🤣🤣

it’s strange you didn’t take up my offer to show this calculator of yours

No it’s not. We’ve already settled that you claim was wrong and moved on, and I already said so at the time Mr. abysmal reading comprehension, and we know you hate long responses, so go back and read the short replies again 🤣🤣🤣

“a problem such as (a+b)c + (d+e)f cannot be done as a simple calculation, it must be split into two parts.”

that’s because it has no brackets keys dude. We’ve already been over it. You’re so wrong you’ve run out of arguments to make and you’re now trying to rehash other stuff

There is no reason that it would need to be split if the calculator had

brackets keys

You have no explanation for why this calculator could not perform this calculation without splitting it.

no brackets keys 🙄

Now, you’ve done a silly with the software calculators there,

says person deflecting from the fact that they’ve been proven wrong, again, and can’t man up and admit to having been wrong, again 🙄

we’re talking about order of operations,

which you were proven wrong about.

not how calculators render implicit multiplication

there’s no such thing as “implicit multiplication” is why we weren’t talking about it

you really ought to keep these things straight in your mind

says person trying to pretend they didn’t say “even though they (developers) can make scientific calculator modes work correctly!” - which I then proved wrong, so more deflection ensues

which they don’t make them work correctly

I’ll rephrase: you have no sane explanation for why scientific mode tends to obey a different order of operations than basic mode on software calculators

I see you didn’t even try any of them (nor even read my thread about them). Had you done so, you would’ve discovered that ones such as the Microsoft Maths Solver sometimes does, sometimes doesn’t, so where in your “sane” explanation can you account for the same calculator only sometimes obeying the rules. Spoiler alert: different programmers with different ideas of what the order of operations rules are, as I have been saying all along - you’re wrong again dude. 🤣🤣🤣 yet again charging into easily proven wrong statements, rather than checking facts first

I do, and it’s because they’re emulating basic, four-function calculators which had no stack

which you were proven wrong about by the manual you posted. So we’re all done then. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out

about a page saying “other rules may have been adopted” suggests anything others than that different rules may have been adopted?

says person revealing they haven’t read about the history behind that comment 🙄

You know by know that no-one but you agrees with your interpretations.

All the textbooks agree dude, which you would know if you had read more, but you’ve chosen to remain an ignorant gaslighter

You can’t find a single explicit agreement with them

With what?

Reposting the same pages that you are misinterpreting is very silly, isn’t it

says person who can’t post anything that agrees with their silly interpretation 🤣🤣🤣

Because every single textbook you’ve cited, I absolutely guarantee it… was written in the past!

But being used in schools right now, and you’re desperately trying to twist my words around to mean something else because you can’t find any textbooks which say juxtaposition, except for one from 1912 🤣🤣🤣

How shall we make sense of this conundrum?

You’re the only one who has issues with understanding present and past tense dude, you’re the only one trying to use a 1912 textbook in the argument.

“I never use drugs” doesn’t mean the same as “I am not using drugs at the moment”

Yes it does, because “I never use drugs” isn’t the same as “I have never used drugs” 🙄

So yeah, you absolutely said the wrong thing

I absolutely didn’t Mr. I can only find it in a 1912 textbook 🤣🤣🤣

your reason for using it is stupid.

says person trying to bring a 1912 textbook into the argument only to avoid admitting having been wrong 🙄

If you were any kind of reasonable person and not someone incapable of admitting the slightest mistake

So not like you, which I’m not 😂

you would have said, “oh, sorry, I meant that textbooks don’t use the word ‘juxtaposition’ any more”

It’s already there in the use of the present tense

Mate, try and keep track. We’re talking about a specific calculator and its specific manual.

And it specifically says you are wrong 🙄

Your calculator is not relevant to that one.

So when you said all, you didn’t really mean all, so an admission that you were wrong about “all”. Got it. Thanks for playing. Glad we’re done with the “basic” calculator topic then

“Says person lying” is your favourite

statement of fact

deflection

says person talking about calculators that don’t have brackets because he’s absolutely proven wrong about The Distributive Law, and is trying to deflect away from admitting being wrong about that 🙄

the calculators we all had in primary school, If you press the following sequence of buttons: 2 + 3 x 5 =, the answer it will give is

17

even though they can make scientific calculator modes work correctly!

Nope! They don’t! With the exception of MathGPT, they all ignore The Distributive Law, you know, the actual original topic 🤣🤣🤣 The Windows calculator in Scientific mode says 8/2(1+3)=16, because, when you type it in, it changes it to 8/2x(1+3). It’s hilarious how you just keep making easily proven wrong statements and bring more embarrassment upon yourself, instead of just, you know, checking facts first 🤣🤣🤣

Sharp calculator obeying The Distributive Law

Note that neither MathGPT, nor the Sharp calculator, forcibly add in a multiply sign where it doesn’t belong. Welcome to dumb programmer who has forgotten how The Distributive Law works and didn’t bother checking in a Maths textbook first.

yet there’s such a simple explanation! They’re emulating basic four-function calculators that have existed for decades

No they’re not! Just like they’re also not emulating Scientific calculators that have existed for decades! 🤣🤣🤣

Do you see the contradiction between the following two statements

Nope!

Maths textbooks never use the word “juxtaposition”

Use of the present tense, no reference to the past at all

A textbook from1912

before you or I was even born

Need to work on your comprehension dude if you see a contradiction there

Is a textbook from 1912 not a textbook?

Does anything in what I said refer to textbooks in the past? That would be past tense, “have never used”. Need to work on your comprehension dude

Does “never” mean something different where you’re from?

Is there no difference between past tense and present tense where you are from?

Your exact words were “Maths textbooks never use the word”.

Yep, exact use of present tense there

Do you stand by that statement now?

Yep

Do you want to admit it was incorrect?

Nope

This is actually even clearer than the lie

Not a lie. Nothing I have ever said is a lie

where you said you didn’t use different screenshots

Never said that either liar. Noted lack of screenshots, or have you still not worked out how to do that yet?

You get the same result if you don’t press the plus button at that point

No you don’t! a+bxc and (a+b)xc aren’t the same thing! 🤣🤣🤣

In what example in the manual

Unlike you I have an actual calculator, no need to look in manuals for how they work. Other dude posted a link where you can buy one for under $10. Go ahead and get one, and let me know what answer it gives you to 2+3x4. I’ll wait 🤣🤣🤣

There is no such example

Hence I can confirm it on my own “non-scientific, non-graphing” calculator, unlike you who appears to not even own a calculator at all, and so is grasping at straws with online manuals 🤣🤣🤣

The annotated screenshot you keep posting is an example of left-to-right evaluation

No it isn’t! It’s an example of evaluating when you press the equals key 🤣🤣🤣 I knew you wouldn’t admit to being wrong. 🙄

You’re just wrongly claiming that pressing the + button for the second time changes the behaviour of the manual

Says person lying about the += button, which acts as a + button when followed by a number, and as an = button when followed by anything else. Note that pressing it turns a+b into (a+b) and not a+b+ 🙄

You’re just wrongly claiming that pressing the + button for the second time changes the behaviour of the manual

says person lying about how a += button works 🙄

Your screenshot says that “calculations can usually be reconstructed as simple chains”

Yep, therefore it is a chain calculator, Mr. needs to go to remedial reading classes

You’re using that as evidence that the calculator is not a normal calculator

can’t do that with a normal calculator, which you would know if you had one! 🤣🤣🤣

It’s so interesting that you couldn’t find anything in the manual saying, “this is a special kind of calculator”

says person lying about the screenshot saying you can use chains with it 🙄

A mystery.

It’s not a mystery why you ignore what’s in screenshots - can’t admit to being wrong about anything 🙄 Your latest adventure involves pretending that present tense means past tense

Buddy, “chain calculators” as you call them are exactly the basic, four-function, stackless, cheapo calculators you can buy for three quid

says person revealing his lack of knowledge about different types of calculators, and also that he is lacking 3 quid to buy one and try it first hand

can’t admit that they’re normal,

says person who doesn’t own a normal calculator, can’t admit they aren’t normal, because can’t admit to being wrong about anything 🙄

I’m sure I have one lying around somewhere,

I’m sure you don’t, or you wouldn’t be hunting around online manuals desperately looking for something to twist into agreeing with you

Want to make a bet on what it’ll output?

with a proven liar. Nope. I’m sure you would go out and buy a chain calculator, then claim it was a “normal” calculator you just had lying around which you magically happened to find

It’s weird that your pettiness goes as far as not taking the W when it’s handed to you, dude

It’s weird that you’re pretending that you admitted to begin wrong about something when you didn’t. Wait a minute, no it isn’t. We’ve already established you’re a gaslighter who can’t admit to being wrong about anything 🙄

just stop it it’s not cool its not funny its not impressing everyone

It’s not meant to be cool, or funny, or impress anyone. It’s fact-checking disinformation

you’re just going to feel badly about it later

Nope! Feels good every time I stop a gaslighter

I was happy to read more

so why didn’t you then? Why did you ask for more screenshots instead of just reading more?

did so extensively

So you did read more and so then continued to lie about what the book said. Got it.

That was first clear when you were given conclusive evidence of calculators working other than how you said they did

Nope! The first manual proved you were wrong about that, and you have still not admitted to being wrong about it. Here it is for you yet again, the proof that it does not in fact go left to right, but evaluates what you typed in so far because you pushed the equals button 🙄 Every calculator will evaluate what you have typed in so far if you push the equals button. And you have to do that with this calculator because it doesn’t have brackets keys, so you press the equals button to evaluate it before entering the rest

you even agreed,

Nope! I posted the same screenshot I just posted again right here, which you have ignored every single time I have posted it, and never admitted to being wrong about it

yet (falsely) said “that’s a niche, chain calculator”

Not false - it was right there in the manual! 😂

instead of addressing how it can be that this calculator and many others

NO other calculators work that way, as seen in the first manual you posted.

don’t work how you think they should.

They all work the same way except for chain calculators, a lie you have still not admitted to yet, despite being presented with the proof from the very manual you posted first

It was made crystal clear when you said that “no textbook uses the term juxtaposition”

Yep!

when a textbook you were quoting from actually did use the term,

A 1912 textbook 🙄

“oh, sorry, I meant ‘no recent textbook’”

Did I say no textbook ever has used juxtaposition. No, I did not. So now you are just twisting words to try and make them match your own narrative. Sorry if you thought Maths teachers go back and read every textbook ever written over the centuries, even though many of them are now outdated. No idea why you would think that anyone does that.

You did explicitly claim, that all basic calculators evaluate left to right, which was already proven false by the very first manual you posted(!) 🤣 and you still haven’t admitted you were wrong. There’s no ambiguity, you explicitly said all of them.

‘no recent textbook’” you denied and deflected

Nope, liar. I pointed out then, as I have just now, again, that it’s a 1912 textbook. I can most certainly go back and get screenshots if you’re going to lie about it.

you cannot. admit. a. mistake

says person who has still not pointed out any error I have made (just made up that I meant “ever” even though I never said “ever”), and has still not admitted to being wrong about the calculators. Just ignores it every single time I bring it up because in fact it is you who cannot admit to being wrong about anything

admit that when you wrote that no textbook uses the term juxtaposition you were actually wrong

I wasn’t wrong. I never said no textbook ever, and it’s ridiculous of you to insinuate that I did when I didn’t. Most sane people know that textbooks that are more than 100 years old (which it is) are out of date - the definition of Division had only recently changed for starters. meanwhile you, who did explicitly use the word all when talking about "non-scientific, non-graphing* calculators, hasn’t admitted to being wrong about that, despite being disproven by the very first manual you posted 🤣🤣🤣

It’ll feel good, I promise

Nope, lying never feels good

You have to click the preview, genius.

says someone who doesn’t know how to post screenshots

Ok, has to scroll past ads to find it 🙄

Yep, no admission of being wrong about anything in there, so thanks for providing the proof that you never admitted to being wrong about anything 🤣🤣🤣

Let me know if you want any online tutoring about how to take and post screenshots. It’s not hard when you have facts to back you up.

All mathematical proofs can be written in that form, otherwise they are not proofs

says person confirming he doesn’t know much about Mathematical proofs 🙄

All kinds of proof are merely special cases of the general kind I told you about

No they’re not, and you even admitted at the time that it had limitations 🙄

You didn’t know this?? Yeesh

Yes, I knew you only knew about one kind of proof, hence why I told you to go back to high school and re-learn all the other types that we teach to students

I’ve given you the definition of a proof before

You gave the defintion of one kind of proof. I’ll take that as an admission then that you can’t fault any of my proofs, since you can’t point out anything wrong with any of them, only that they don’t use the only proof method you know of, having forgotten the other proof methods that were taught to you in high school 🤣🤣🤣

if you can’t work out why what you wrote doesn’t match

I already know why it doesn’t match, that doesn’t make it not a proof, DUUUUHHH!!! 🤣🤣🤣 You need to go back to high school and learn about the other methods of proof that we use. You only seem to know the one you use in your little bubble.

you just can’t do maths.

Says person who only knows of ONE way to prove anything in Maths! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 🤣🤣🤣

Taken as an admission that I have indeed proved my points then, as I already knew was the case.

That’s ok, as Barbie taught us “math is hard!”

Is THAT why you only know ONE method of proof - you learnt from Barbie??? 🤣🤣🤣

Dude, I don’t care that you asked me to read more

I’ll take that as an admission of being bad faith the whole time then, exactly as I said.

If you send a screenshot that doesn’t contain a word and then can’t admit that this is true

says person who was sent a screenshot of how their claim about the calculator order of operations is wrong and can’t admit it 🙄

then can’t admit that this is true

You need remedial reading classes as well dude.

can’t about that you denied all of this wrongly

That’s quite a word salad. You wanna try that again and make sense this time?

we’re not at a point where me reading more is in my interests

Yet again admitting you were bad faith the whole time 🙄

it will not get us to a point where we can have a discussion on even terms.

and it never will since you keep refusing to read anything. You expect me to paste the whole textbook into here??? 🙄 Dude, you are the worst bad faith person I have ever come across.

show me that it’s worth it,

Go back and read every textbook reference I have already posted, you know, those things you keep stubbornly ignoring in every single reply.

If you want a discussion

I don’t care. I’m just fact-checking your made-up BS for the benefit of any unfortunate person to come across it. If you had wanted a discussion, then you would have discussed it with me, something which you have so far refused to do.

that there is a chance that I could convince you of even the smallest thing

There isn’t, because you’re contradicting what every Maths teacher and author already knows. 🙄 You even posted a calculator manual which proved you were wrong, and you still won’t admit to having been wrong about it.

admit that you made an error

says person who still can’t point out a single error that I have made ever 🙄

talk about what you actually want to talk about

I already posted all the proof, you just keep ignoring it. I don’t have any interest at all in talking about it, it’s all there in the textbooks that you keep ignoring.

I am capable of admitting a mistake, sorry but I already did so at the bottom of this comment:

Umm, what??? I don’t see any admission of anything. Why is it that none of you gaslighters know how to take screenshots of anything?

I am capable of admitting a mistake, sorry but I already did so at the bottom of this comment:

BTW given your admission of not reading my reply to that one, you were quoting a 1912 textbook, not, you know, a 1965 or later textbook 🙄

And yet you were unable to reply with a proof. So sad

Says person unable to point out in what way it wasn’t a proof, so sad 🤣🤣🤣

That’s some awful impressive goalpost shifting

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Says person refusing to acknowledge that it’s in textbooks the difference between conventions and rules 🤣🤣🤣

Gold medal mental gymnastics winner

Yep, I know you are. That’s why you had to post known to be wrong blogs, because you couldn’t find any textbooks that agree with you 🤣🤣🤣

And here you are, still unable to explain why prefix and postfix notation don’t have an operator precedence.

Speaking of goalpost shifting - what happened to they don’t have rules?? THAT was your point before, and now you have moved the goalposts when I pointed out that the blog was wrong 🤣🤣🤣

I’m still waiting

says person who has still not posted any textbook at all with anything at all that agrees with them, to someone who has posted multiple textbooks that prove you are wrong, and now you are deflecting 🤣🤣🤣🤣

They literally don’t

they literally *do., That’s why the rules get mentioned once at the start of the blog - it’s the same rules duuuhhh!!! 🤣🤣🤣

I defy you to show me a single source that tells you that prefix or postfix notation use PEDMAS.

PEMDAS isn’t the rules, it’s a convention

I’ll even take Quora answers

I won’t take anything but textbooks, and you’ve still come up with none

I’ll even take a reputable source talking about prefix/postfix that doesnt bring up how order of operations isn’t required for those notations.

That’s exactly what the blog you posted does. I knew you hadn’t read it! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 🤣🤣🤣 I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong then

No, you’ve show a screenshot from a random PDF

of a Maths textbook, with the name of the textbook in the top left, and the page number also in the top left. 🤣🤣🤣

Infix notation needs extra information to make the order of evaluation of the operators clear:

rules built into the language about operator precedence and associativity

Yep, says nothing about operator precedence being tied to the notation, exactly as I just said, so that’s a fail from you then

But then you go on to say something to the effect of “anyone who knows the rules can the extra information”

derive the rules is what I said liar. The only thing you need to know is the definition of the operators, everything else follows logically from there.

Which is both unsubstantiated given the long history of not having PEDMAS

The order of operations rules are way older than PEMDAS. It even says it in one of the blogs you posted that PEMDAS is quite recent, again showing you didn’t actually read any of it. 🙄

No, you’ve show a screenshot from a random PDF

Nothing random about it. The name of the textbook is in the top left. Go ahead and search for it and let me know what you find. I’ll wait 🤣🤣🤣

What math textbook and what edition is it?

So, you’re telling me you don’t know how to look at the name of the PDF and search for it?? 🤣🤣🤣 I can tell you now it’s the #1 hit on Google

The fact you think that factorization has to do with order of operations is shocking

says person revealing they don’t know anything about order of operations 🤣🤣🤣 Make sure you let all the textbook authors know as well 🤣🤣🤣

Yes the multiplication is done first

No, Brackets are done first.

The law is about converting between a sum of a common product and a product of sums

Nope. That’s the Distributive Property, and yes indeed, the Property has nothing to do with order of operations, but the Distributive Law has everything to do with order of operations.

No matter how you write them, it will always be about those things,

The Property will, the Law isn’t

so the multiplication always happens first.

No, Brackets are always done first

It’s crazy that you’re not able to distinguish between mathematical concepts and the notation we use to describe them

says person who doesn’t even know the difference between a Property and a Law, and, as far as I can tell, have never even heard of The Distributive Law, given they keep talking about the Property

But putting that aside, that’s not a proof of PEDMAS.

Right, it’s a proof of the order of operations rules for Brackets 🙄

If PEDMAS is an actual law

It isn’t, it’s a convention

There are proofs for 1+1

It’s true by definition. There’s nothing complex about it. Just like ab=(axb) is true by definition

if PEDMAS is a law

It isn’t, it’s a convention. Not sure how many times you need to be told that 🙄

or an textbook snippet

You mean like textbook snippets stating that The Distributive Law is the reverse operation to Factorising?? See above 🤣🤣🤣

What I said was

After I had repeatedly said read more, but you refused to, Mr. I’m only pretending to be good faith, so welcome to the embarrassment you suffered from not doing what I said 🙄

Then you replied with different screenshots

From the same page, the page you refused to read 🙄 Again, welcome to an embarrassment of your own making. That’ll teach you that actual good faith people will read more 🙄

When I pointed that out, you said “no”

…same page, a point you are still stubbornly refusing to acknowledge. Just look at the fact that you left it out of what you were quoting! 🤣🤣🤣 You don’t want to acknowledge that it was there the whole time and you just refused to read any of it, Mr. “Good faith” 🤣🤣🤣

You’re referring to other ways in which you’re wrong

Nope, you, that’s why you are still refusing to reply to them, pretend like you never saw the proof that you were wrong 🤣🤣🤣 Go ahead, reply to them, tell me where I’m supposedly wrong, according to you. I’ll wait, ready with textbooks to prove you wrong, again 🤣🤣🤣

You could admit you used different screenshots

says Mr. Poor comprehension, as I already pointed out, but you are also not replying to that to also not admit anything of your own fault 🤣🤣🤣

you could admit that saying “no, same page”

And you could admit to how many times I told you to read more, but you stubbornly refused, hence the current embarrassment you find yourself in. I shouldn’t have needed to even post any more screenshots at all, Mr. “Good faith” 🤣🤣🤣 But here we are Mr. bad faith

you could admit that, indeed, the word “multiplication” never appeared in those first screenshots

And you could admit that you never read anything at all from the textbook, and were just belligerently making up arguments based on what you saw in the screenshots, Mr. bad faith. Welcome to what happens when you refuse to engage in good faith arguments.

Go on, cough up literally one thing

Let’s start with you were wrong about the first calculator evaluating left to right

I did it already, as a show of good will, you can do it too!

No you haven’t! You haven’t admitted to anything

Our friend doesn’t know what a mathematical proof is,

says person who doesn’t know enough about Maths to prove the order of operations rules, which literally anyone can do for themselves if they know all the operator and grouping symbols definitions 🤣🤣🤣

will instead try to give you an example in which he posits a real-world calculation, writes down an arithmetic expression for it according to one convention, interprets it with another, gets a different answer, and tells you this is “proof” that it’s wrong

I have no idea who you’re talking about, but it ain’t me! 😂

writes down an arithmetic expression for it according to

the definitions of the operators 🙄

When I explained to him

was precisely nothing

how you could write down the expression according to a different convention, then interpret it with the same convention and get the same answer, he just denied, denied, denied

What you mean is I actually proved you wrong about “different conventions” (noted you still don’t know the difference between conventions and rules), but you’re pretending it never happened 🙄

A claim entirely unsupported by the textbook example you provided

says person who pointed out to begin with it was talking about conventions. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I even underlined it for you. Ok, then, tell me which convention exactly they are talking about if it isn’t left to right 😂

Nowhere does it say that one is a convention

It quite clearly states that left to right is a convention 🙄

but not the other

“the other” wasn’t even the subject at hand. 🙄 Here you go then…

it only says that removing brackets changes the meaning in some situations, which is fully within the scope of a convention

But not within the scope of rules 🙄

There you go again, just admitting you don’t know what postfix and prefix notations are.

There you go again not being able to say what the RULES for them are! 🤣🤣🤣 I admitted nothing of the kind by the way. I already told you 3 times they obey the same rules 🙄

here is a great free article from Colorado State university

It’s pretty rubbish actually - finding a blog post by someone as ill-informed as you doesn’t make it “great”. Note that I always cite Maths textbooks and thus have no need to ever quote blog posts? 😂

Note how it says the rules about operator precedence are for the notation

Because (sigh) the same rules apply to all notations 🙄

which itself is a convention, as all notations are

Yep, and are separate to the rules, which are the same for all notations

Note how it says the rules about operator precedence are for the notation

Nope. Doesn’t say that anywhere. Go ahead and screenshot the part which you think says that. I’ll wait

how prefix and postfix don’t need those rules

Doesn’t say that either. 🙄 Again, provide a screenshot of where you think it says that

BTW this is completely wrong…

“Infix notation needs extra information to make the order of evaluation of the operators clear” - Anyone who knows the definitions of the operators and grouping symbols is able to derive the rules for themselves, no need for any “extra information” 🙄

“For example, the usual rules for associativity say that we perform operations from left to right” - The thing we just established is a convention, not rules 🙄

“so the multiplication by A is assumed to come before the division by D” - Which we’ve already established can be done in any order 🙄

How embarrassing for you

No, you actually. You know, the person who can’t find a single textbook that agrees with them 😂

Here are some more materials

NONE of which were Maths textbooks, NOR Maths teachers 😂

A post by Berkley university about popular ambiguous equations

None of which are actually ambiguous. He should’ve looked in a Maths textbook before writing it 😂

“the 48/2(9+3) question” - 48/2(9+3)=48/(2x9+2x3), per The Distributive Law, as found in Maths textbooks 😂

A published paper from Berkley that has been cited, with much stronger language on the matter

Did you even read it?? Dude doesn’t even know the definition of Terms, ab=(axb) 🤣🤣🤣

Here is an article from the university of Melbourne

“Without an agreed upon order” - Ummm, we have proven rules, which literally anyone can prove to themselves 😂

Article from the university of utah

“There is no mathematical reason for the convention” - There are reasons for all the conventions - talk about admitting right at the start that you don’t know much about Maths 🙄

A howstuffworks article on order of operations that explains it

It only explains the mnemonics actually, not why the rules are what they are. 🙄

Did you read it?? 🤣🤣🤣

“The order of operations — as Americans know it today — was probably formalized in either the late 18th century” - Nope! Way older than that 🙄

doesn’t have the pedigree of a university, but still clearly explained

It actually did a better job than all of the university blogs you posted! 🤣🤣🤣

Plus dozens of Quora answers, articles from online academies and learning centers, that I figured you’d just dismiss.

Because not Maths textbooks, duuuuhhhh 🤣🤣🤣

But to top it all off, if this was truely a law of mathematics

Which it is as per Maths textbooks 🤣🤣🤣

then show me a proof, theorem, or even a mathematical conjecture, about order of operations.

The proof is it’s the reverse operation to Factorising, thus must be done first 🙄

But since you hate Maths textbooks, go ahead and search for “reverse operation of distributive law” and let me know what you find. I’ll wait 🤣🤣🤣