• Do you teach classes like this? “That’s not a product, it’s a multiplication”

    Yep! And if you read more than 2 sentences out of the textbook you would know why 🙄

    those are the same thing.

    Says person who only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter 🙄

    Shouldn’t you, as a teacher, be explaining the difference, if you say there is one?

    Yep, and it’s right there in the textbook! 🙄

    I’m starting to believe you don’t think they’re is one

    So you think if a=2 and b=3, then…

    1/ab=1/(2x3)=1/6

    1/axb=1/2x3=3/2

    Are somehow the same answer?? 😂 Which one is it then? 1/6 or 3/2?? 😂

    You could argue that “product” refers to the result of the multiplication rather than the operation

    Yep by definition!

    there’s no sense in which the formula “a × b” does not refer to the result of multiplying a and b

    There’s no sense in which it does refer to the result you mean. The result of axb is ab. If a=2, b=3, axb=ab. 2x3=6, axb=2x3, ab=6

    you don’t bother to even make such an argument

    Says someone revealing that they haven’t read a word I’ve said 🙄

    you’re not actuality smart enough to understand the words you’re using

    says someone who has just proven they haven’t been reading them 🙄

    It’s interesting, isn’t it, that you never provide any reference to your textbooks to back up these strange interpretations

    Yes I did, and you only read 2 sentences out of it 😂

    Where in your textbook does it say explicitly that ab is not a multiplication

    Read on dude, read on, like I have been telling you the whole time. Oh wait, that would prove you were wrong. Oh, I wonder why you haven’t read it… 🙄

    It doesn’t, does it?

    The page that you only read one sentence from 🙄

    You’re keen to cite textbooks any time you can, but here you can’t

    I already did and you only read 2 sentences out of it 🙄

    You complain that people don’t read enough of the textbook, yet they read more than you ever refer to

    says person who has repeatedly proven they’ve only read 2 sentences 🙄

    In the other thread I said I wouldn’t continue unless you demonstrated your good faith by admitting to a simple verifiable fact that you got wrong

    And I pointed out that in fact you got it wrong, and Mr. Hypocrite has failed to admit it 🙄

    provide an actual textbook example where any of the disputed claims you make are explicitly made

    Same one I already told you and you only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter

    there should be some textbook somewhere which says that mathematics would not work with different orders of operations

    It’s easy enough to prove yourself, like I did. Go ahead and try it out and let me know how you go.

    you’ve never found a textbook which says anything like this

    No, I was able to prove it myself 🙄

    only things like “mathematicians have agreed”

    Because it was proven 🙄

    where’s your textbook which says that “a × b is not a term”?

    Same textbook that you only read 2 sentences from

    Where is the textbook that says 5(17) requires distribution?

    It tells you tight there on the same page that you must remove all brackets, 🙄 which you also haven’t admitted to being wrong about yet, surprise, surprise, surprise

    Where’s your textbook which says “ab is a product, not multiplication”?

    Same one you only read 2 sentences from

    there is a textbook reference saying “ab means the same as a × b”,

    And you stopped reading at that point didn’t even finish the page, never mind the chapter 🙄 Just started making false claims (contradicted by same textbook) that “means” means “equals”, instead of realising they have explicitly not said equals 🙄

    so your mental contortions are not more authoritative

    Says person who made the mental contortion that “means” means “equals” instead of reading the rest of the page

    your ability to interpret maths textbooks is poor

    says person who only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter 🙄

    we can have a productive discussion

    when you decide to read more than 2 sentences 🙄

    My prediction: you’ll present some implicit references

    Wrong, as usual

    try to argue they mean what you want

    says person trying to argue that “means” means “equals” 🙄

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s amazing that you think these are explicit references. Notice how the text never says “you MUST use the distributive law”? It always says some variation of “in order to simplify, you must…”?

      No, you don’t notice, because you’re blind, and don’t understand what distributivity actually is.

      You also got me confused with someone else trying to explain in short words how you’re wrong, but that won’t be a problem now you demonstrated such abject failure to hold a productive discussion - bye.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      There’s no sense in which it does refer to the result you mean.

      “a X b is written ab.” Modern Algebra: Structure And Method, page 36. It’s only a different way of writing the exact same thing.

      Go ahead and try it out and let me know how you go.

      Every textbook ever written disagrees with how you think brackets work, and mathematics has not collapsed in on itself. We’ve seen your Mastodon posts lamenting how ‘university people’ all disagree with what you lie to teenagers about. All of them! Weird, right? What a bizarre coincidence. I’m not sure what would look different if you were just plain full of shit.