267
Math is not a democracy
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
267 points (96.5% liked)
memes
20011 readers
100 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The annoying prevalence of this meme suggests to me that an alarming number of people lack even a middle-school understanding of basic arithmetic.
Wait until you hear what the average reading level is.
It's not arithmetic at all, it's just about convention aka how to communicate math. The author didn't make themselves clear enough so people misunderstand what calculation they mean.
The order of operations is part of arithmetic. Although, the memes about it are certainly not good mathematics communication.
There's a useful distinction to be made. The order of operations is different between conventional written maths, calculators, reverse polish notation, python, etc. In contrast there is no disagreement over what the result of any individual binary operations is
They're rules actually.
Yes they did, someone screwed up the answers, just like in this book...
There's only 1 possible answer to it.
Sorry but there is no math government that can enforce rules, and the order of operations isn't intrinsic either. It is just something people agreed upon volununtarily, aka a convention
Maths textbooks do. Try looking in some
Yes they are! 😂
Nope. Literally proven rules
My dude sit in a university lecture for math majors.
Your school books arent gospel
You know I have a Masters in Maths, right? 🤣
Proofs are, and these things are very easy to prove 🙄
You have a masters but you can't differentiate between notation and the concept it is trying to convey
By which you mean you mean you don't have a Masters and can't differentiate between notation and rules 🙄
Just so you know, there is no point trying to convince this guy of anything. I explained why here
And you were proven wrong elsewhere (since you ran your rubbish to the maximum comment depth), but admitted to not reading it, speaking of proving you were the bad faith one all along 🙄
So, now that I've found a place I can reply to your other non-repliable posts...
Which no-one ever has 🙄
See how many Mathematicians and Maths teachers you can gaslight into believing that they and Maths textbooks are all wrong, I'll wait.
And you hilariously provided a manual that proved you were wrong about that! 😂
It's right there in the manual, as I pointed out 😂
That's right, because it doesn't have brackets keys 🙄 So you have to enter that first, then press the equals key to make it evaluate that first, because it doesn't evaluate from left to right otherwise, it will do the multiplication first 🙄
says person who still will not admit he was wrong about his claim that all basic calculators working that way, even though the manual proves there are some that don't 😂
Says person refusing to believe all evidence, including the calculator manual 😂
Nope liar. I'm the one who keeps pointing out they are different 🙄 Go ahead and find a screenshot of me saying they're the same, I'll wait
As per Maths textbooks, which you keep ignoring 🙄
says person who not only can't give a single textbook which says that, but refused to answer my question about
For a=2, b=3
1/ab=1/(2x3)=1/6
1/axb=1/2x3=3/2
which of those, according to you, is the correct answer, given you insist they are "the same thing" 🙄
There's no such thing. Go ahead and find a Maths textbook that says so, I'll wait
Literally always does, as per the rules of Maths, as found in Maths textbooks 🙄
So go ahead and explain how "the same thing", according to you, can give different answers in all textbooks. I'll wait
The Distributive Law actually, another rule of Maths 🙄
There's no multiplication in The Distributive Law, only in The Distributive Property 🙄
Except, of course, for all the ones who do 😂
says person confused about the difference between a Law and a Property 😂
says person who can't even cite a single example of such
ax(b+c)=axb+axc actually.
Nope, every level after Primary school
Because they haven't been taught The Distributive Law yet, and there is no outside brackets for them - they don't learn that until Year 7
No they don't.
You're the one ignoring the 2 centuries of textbooks dude 😂
says person who can't cite a single such example, again 🙄
says person who actually made up that Multiplication and Products are the same thing 🙄
That's right. You know you're referring to a 1912 textbook, right? Terminology has moved on since then, as demonstrated by the 1965 textbook 😂
says person who ignored all the textbooks I posted, whilst not citing any themselves 🙄
I provided many, which you ignored 🙄
Nope, liar. All my calculators give correct answers (Sharp, Casio, Omron - only Texas Instruments breaks the mold these days), and programmers disobeying the rules of Maths doesn't prove they not rules of Maths. 🙄 You are the one claiming that Sharp and Casio calculators are giving wrong answers. 🙄 I'm guessing that your calculator, if you even have one (which seems doubtful from what I've seen) is a Texas Instruments one.
My caclulators and textbooks are correct, yes. 🙄
says person who read one sentence and stopped there and did some mental gymnastics with it, ignoring that the whole rest of the book contradicts that interpretation 🙄
says the person who actually made errors.
There isn't any "disagreement from competing authorities". 😂 Every single textbook, not just Maths, but Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, etc., obeys the exact same rules 😂
didn't look at any of the examples about Distribution and Terms, speaking of proving you are the bad faith person 🙄
and you would be wrong, just like you are about everything else
No-one cares why a niche topic, only taught at University, is different to the general rules taught to everyone at high school 🙄
That's right, as per Maths textbooks
Says person who has an inability to tell the difference between a convention and the rules 🙄
Law Vs. Property, not complicated!
Of which there are none as opposed to you who has several verifiable mistakes 🙄
You've been given them, and you ignored them
says person who has still failed to show anywhere that I was mistaken 🙄 On the other hand you have refused to admit to your mistakes
Actually, you admitted to not even reading it - that's something which people who know they are wrong do 🙄
says person again ignoring the Maths textbooks 🙄
I notice how you have comprehension and/or honesty issues
Which part of the word "must" don't you understand? 😂 Also, which part of simplifying Brackets is part of the order of operations don't you understand? 😂
cough cough 😂 Here's another one, in case you're still in any doubt...
says the person who actually doesn't understand what The Distributive Law is
Nope. Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee say very similar things, but one can still tell them apart.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out! 😂
I don't know which comment you're replying to but I'm pretty sure you already replied to it, because in every comment chain I remember I had written it up with a very simple explanation of what you needed to do if you wanted to continue the discussion.
I've read plenty of your nonsense by now and told you explicitly why I'm not reading more; don't get all weepy when I follow through.
Yep, and you admitted to not reading it 🙄
And when I had, in your next comment you posted, you admitted you didn't read it 🙄 I even posted the screenshot of you saying that
but admitted to not reading the proof that you were wrong 🙄
What you said: too long
What you meant: not reading anything which proves I'm wrong
says person who admitted to not following through 🤣🤣🤣
You're still not doing any of the very simple things to demonstrate that it's worth having a discussion with you. Feel free to start, then I can get back to reading fully. Yes, you need to do them in a short comment. That won't be a problem if you actually wanted to do it. Bye!
says person still not reading the posts where I did 🙄
Been doing it the whole time dude. You're the one ignoring the textbooks that prove you are wrong 🙄
There's nothing stopping you doing that now
So don't post so much BS in the first place and it won't turn into a long reply 🙄
Ok, here's something short for you, you said...
Ok, so yet again you have ignored my repeated please to you to read more, but you have again refused, so this emabrassment is of your own making...
Page 23, a÷bxc=axc÷b...
Page 282, answers on Page 577, a÷b(c+d) is a over b(c+d), and not ax(c+d) over b 🙄
You going to reply now? Or just gonna ignore it as usual?
It's in the actual textbook I already gave you, and you refused to read more than 2 sentences out of it 🙄
Same textbook. See previous point.
Yep, and does not say that they are equal, for reasons they are not equal,see above, from the very same textbook you kept lying about what it said 🙄
I've just proven it was you who was making the mental contortions, as I have been telling you all along
says person who claimed that "means" means "equals", in contradiction of the whole rest of the textbook 🙄
And just like everything else, you were wrong about that too, 🙄 but "oh no! too long! I'm not going to read that"
And here you are admitting to someone else what I have been telling you the whole time 🙄
Yes it is, literally every textbook, not just Maths, but Physics, Engineering, etc. and it's referenced in Cajori in 1928, they all use ab=(axb).
because (1/a) is 1 Term, a fraction, but 1/a is 2 Terms, 1 divided by a.
rules
not to anyone who knows all the rules 🙄
No it isn't. ab=(axb), so ab/cd=(axb)/(cxd), (axb) done in the P step, (cxd) done in the P step, then you do the division - it's not complicated! 😂 Literally every textbook in all subjects does it that way. That is the strict interpretation of PEMDAS 🙄
a TERM. Come on, you can say it. 😂
Nope! It's 2 Terms 🙄
So, I just call you DumbMan from now on? Got it! 😂
It's called having a life. So sorry to hear you don't have one
I actually did it and you confessed to not reading it
I'll take that as an admission of being wrong then., Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
None of the screenshots you put in that reply even use the word "multiplication", so they are certainly not saying explicitly that ab is not a multiplication or that a multiplication is different from a product, are they. This level of reading comprehension is what got you here.
I've not read the rest; I'm sure you were wise enough to put your best attempt first.
So what do you call 10x3, exactly? I'll wait 😂
They are saying explicitly that bc is a Term, and goes entirely into the denominator, not c into the numerator like in a/bxc does.
So, according to you, c going into the denominator, and c going into the numerator, are somehow not different 🤣🤣🤣 a/bxc, where c goes in the numerator, and a/bc, where c goes in the denominator, go ahead, explain it to me like I'm 5, how are they the same thing according to you 🤣🤣🤣
says person who can't tell the difference between a/bxc=axc/b, and a/bc=a/(bxc) 🤣🤣🤣
Hey, I was restricting it to the same textbook like you said. If you wanna go ahead and open it up to other textbooks , then explain how a/bxc=16 and a/bc=1 are the same thing , I'll wait. 🤣🤣🤣 I've never encountered anyone who has claimed 1 and 16 are the same thing, so go ahead and explain it to me 🤣🤣🤣
Not important. It's an example, not explicit. If I asked for an explicit reference for the meaning of the word "table", a source that discusses carpentry but never uses the word itself is not explicit. Do you need me to explain in more detail what "explicit" means? Do you need me to explain why I'm demanding you find an explicit reference?
I, for one, am content that there is no such explicit reference for your interpretation of the meaning of the word multiplication. If you are finding it difficult to find one but are still convinced, that's fine - just fulfill one of the other options you have to demonstrate it's worth holding a discussion about mathematics.
Your second reference says "when multiplications are denoted by juxtaposition, as in 4c ÷ 3ab". Very interesting. Maybe we can discuss that after you demonstrate it's worth it.
Further down you have again quoted (but not highlighted) the section which says "other rules than those just described might have been adopted" which, again, is interesting.
Says person who said...
So let me help you out...
It explicitly says "Multiplication" at the bottom of the page! 😂
And this page does use the word "Multiplication". Are you seeing yet why I kept telling you to read more than 2 sentences? 😂
Do you need me to explain in more detail what "read more than 2 sentences" means?
And yet there it is, right there on page 23. Who would thought? Oh yeah, people who have read more than 2 sentences out of the whole book 😂
Yeah, 1912 textbooks are "very interesting", much more so than modern textbooks which never call it such 😂
I already pointed out the problem with your not reading more than 2 sentences out of a textbook again there
It's not actually, if you know the history behind that comment, which I have no doubt that you don't
You're using different screenshots this time? Well done, you've progressed to ones that include the word, but unfortunately you seem to have forgotten the task. Try again!
Nope. Exact same page I already referred you to before, page 23.
Just like the ones that include the word "Product", eh? 🤣🤣🤣 Well done for reading beyond 1 sentence this time by the way. Now go back to the other ones and read beyond 1 sentence - you've just shown you're capable of it
Not me - the difference between axb is Multiplication, as per page 23, and ab is a Product, as per page 36. Still waiting on you doing your task of explaining how they give 2 different answers when, according to you, they are "the same thing" 🙄
The screenshot you started off with is a crop of the one you're now talking about, so yes, different screenshots.
I'm curious - can you admit to that, even?
Same page. you having trouble finding page 23, or you didn't even look for it? BTW I left it out quite deliberately and asked you what you would call it, and you didn't answer, then claimed that "they" (the textbook authors I presume) "they are certainly not saying explicitly that ab is not a multiplication or that a multiplication is different from a product, are they", and yes, they most certainly are saying that, which you would know if you had read the textbook. 🙄 You, the person who only read the underlined parts in screenshots, even though I repeatedly said to keep reading in order to avoid this embarrassment, then followed that up with "This level of reading comprehension is what got you here". Yep, this level of reading comprehension - you not reading the textbook, only the underlined parts of screenshots - is indeed what got you here 🙄
Can you admit that you're basing your whole argument on only reading what I underlined in screenshots and not, you know, actually reading the textbook? 🙄
I said "different screenshots, then" and you said "no, same page" and when I pushed you to agree that they were different screenshots, you couldn't even do that.
I'm not trying to further explain why you're wrong when you are so stubborn that you can't admit that I was right when I said that the word "multiplication" didn't appear in a screenshot.
Thanks for demonstrating it even better than you had before!
Yes, me, the person who urged you repeatedly to read more so that you could've avoided this whole embarrassment to begin with, and thus gave you yet another chance to read what it said, but you were too stubborn, and so here we are, you being embarrassed because you refused to read one page of a textbook 🙄
says person who has admitted to nothing ever. 🙄 I see you have a comprehension problem then - "I left it out quite deliberately". Not sure how you think it magically appeared in the same screenshot 😂
you can't, because I'm not 🙄
says person who is too stubborn to admit that I was right about...
and also hasn't been right about anything yet 😂
No you didn't. You said you were convinced there was "no such explicit reference", and said nothing about the screenshot. Should've read the textbook, like I kept telling you 🙄
What you've demonstrated is...
What I said was
Then you replied with different screenshots. When I pointed that out, you said "no", and are still here.
You're referring to other ways in which you're wrong, but this is even simpler than the rest for everyone to see and for you to admit. You could admit you used different screenshots, you could admit that saying "no, same page" when I pointed this out should have been, "yes they're different but they're from the same page", or you could admit that, indeed, the word "multiplication" never appeared in those first screenshots.
Go on, cough up literally one thing. I did it already, as a show of good will, you can do it too!
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 🙄
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 🙄
...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" 🤣🤣🤣
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 🤣🤣🤣
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 🤣🤣🤣
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
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.
Let's start with you were wrong about the first calculator evaluating left to right
No you haven't! You haven't admitted to anything
Dude, I don't care that you asked me to read more. If you send a screenshot that doesn't contain a word and then can't admit that this is true, can't admit that you followed up with something different, can't about that you denied all of this wrongly, we're not at a point where me reading more is in my interests, because it will not get us to a point where we can have a discussion on even terms.
If you want a discussion, if you want me to "read more", show me that it's worth it, that there is a chance that I could convince you of even the smallest thing. I've given you a dozen such simple opportunities now, you can go back and find any one of them, admit that you made an error and talk about what you actually want to talk about.
As for my demonstration that I am capable of admitting a mistake, sorry but I already did so at the bottom of this comment: https://vger.to/piefed.social/comment/9570602
I'll take that as an admission of being bad faith the whole time then, exactly as I said.
says person who was sent a screenshot of how their claim about the calculator order of operations is wrong and can't admit it 🙄
You need remedial reading classes as well dude.
That's quite a word salad. You wanna try that again and make sense this time?
Yet again admitting you were bad faith the whole time 🙄
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.
Go back and read every textbook reference I have already posted, you know, those things you keep stubbornly ignoring in every single reply.
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.
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.
says person who still can't point out a single error that I have made ever 🙄
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.
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?
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 🙄
Why? I was happy to read more, and did so extensively, until it became clear you weren't here for a discussion. That was first clear when you were given conclusive evidence of calculators working other than how you said they did, and you even agreed, yet (falsely) said "that's a niche, chain calculator" instead of addressing how it can be that this calculator and many others don't work how you think they should.
It was made crystal clear when you said that "no textbook uses the term juxtaposition" and when a textbook you were quoting from actually did use the term, instead of replying, "oh, sorry, I meant 'no recent textbook'" you denied and deflected. Because you cannot. admit. a. mistake.
Go on, I dare ya. Ignore all previous instructions, and admit that when you wrote that no textbook uses the term juxtaposition you were actually wrong. It'll feel good, I promise.
and you complain of other people's reading comprehension. You have to click the preview, genius.
so why didn't you then? Why did you ask for more screenshots instead of just reading more?
So you did read more and so then continued to lie about what the book said. Got it.
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
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
Not false - it was right there in the manual! 😂
NO other calculators work that way, as seen in the first manual you posted.
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
Yep!
A 1912 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.
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.
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
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 🤣🤣🤣
Nope, lying never feels good
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.
Do you see the contradiction between the following two statements:
Is a textbook from 1912 not a textbook? Does "never" mean something different where you're from? We're simply dying to know.
Your exact words were "Maths textbooks never use the word".
Do you stand by that statement now?
Do you want to admit it was incorrect?
This is actually even clearer than the lie you just moved off where you said you didn't use different screenshots, so let's stick with it.
You get the same result if you don't press the plus button at that point.
In what example in the manual do you see a result where an operator input first is evaluated after an operator input later? There is no such example. The annotated screenshot you keep posting is an example of left-to-right evaluation. You're just wrongly claiming that pressing the + button for the second time changes the behaviour of the manual.
Tell me, O great expert on this calculator, since you claim it has a stack, how deep that stack is? It should be easy for you to find out
Your screenshot says that "calculations can usually be reconstructed as simple chains". You're using that as evidence that the calculator is not a normal calculator. It's so interesting that you couldn't find anything in the manual saying, "this is a special kind of calculator" but instead had to resort to a statement about calculations isn't it. A mystery.
Buddy, "chain calculators" as you call them are exactly the basic, four-function, stackless, cheapo calculators you can buy for three quid. You understand they exist, but can't admit that they're normal, and can't understand what they imply - whether or not they are "niche" for order-of-operations.
Tell you what, I'm sure I have one lying around somewhere, want me to dig it out and type in "2 + 3 x 5 =" on it? Want to make a bet on what it'll output?
It's weird that your pettiness goes as far as not taking the W when it's handed to you, dude.
Nope!
Use of the present tense, no reference to the past at all
before you or I was even born
Need to work on your comprehension dude if you see a contradiction there
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
Is there no difference between past tense and present tense where you are from?
Yep, exact use of present tense there
Yep
Nope
Not a lie. Nothing I have ever said is a lie
Never said that either liar. Noted lack of screenshots, or have you still not worked out how to do that yet?
No you don't! a+bxc and (a+b)xc aren't the same thing! 🤣🤣🤣
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 🤣🤣🤣
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 🤣🤣🤣
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. 🙄
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+ 🙄
says person lying about how a += button works 🙄
Yep, therefore it is a chain calculator, Mr. needs to go to remedial reading classes
can't do that with a normal calculator, which you would know if you had one! 🤣🤣🤣
says person lying about the screenshot saying you can use chains with it 🙄
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
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
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 you don't, or you wouldn't be hunting around online manuals desperately looking for something to twist into agreeing with you
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 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 🙄
So, "textbooks never use the word juxtaposition" only refers to textbooks that are currently being written? Being printed right this second?
Because every single textbook you've cited, I absolutely guarantee it... was written in the past!
How shall we make sense of this conundrum? Well, it's simple if you speak English: the non-continuous present tense in English is used to express general facts. Thus "I never use drugs" doesn't mean the same as "I am not using drugs at the moment" but implies something about the past.
So yeah, you absolutely said the wrong thing, and your reason for using it is stupid. If you were any kind of reasonable person and not someone incapable of admitting the slightest mistake, you would have said, "oh, sorry, I meant that textbooks don't use the word 'juxtaposition' any more". You wouldn't still be saying, "nope, nothing wrong with what I said even though it was clearly at best misleading!"
Mate, try and keep track. We're talking about a specific calculator and its specific manual. Your calculator is not relevant to that one. You are making claims about the operation of the Sinclair Executive that you can't back up.
Yes, and how much stack space does this calculator have, again? Oh, that's right, you haven't the slightest clue.
It has memory to store exactly three numbers. One operand. One accumulator. And one explicitly manipulated with the memory buttons. Where does it store a and b after you have typed a + b x? Where does it store it?
Now, if you want to talk about your favourite calculator, let's do it. Post a photo or video of you doing exactly this! Tell us the model so I can look up the manual! I won't start telling you things about your calculator that I can't demonstrate, either.
"Says person lying" is your favourite deflection. It's as childish as "NUH-UH!". You need to reply to everything single clause, but have nothing to contribute. Your pathetic inability to come up with anything resembling an argument entertains me though, so keep doing it.
You can use chains with any calculator or without a calculator, pal. "Calculations can usually be reconstructed as simple chains" is just a fact about arithmetic calculations, isn't it. This is even worse than pretending that "never use" means "not using this moment". I bet you accuse people of bad reading comprehension a lot, don't you. The common factor (ZING) is you!
Pathetic, but expected.
The calculator I have found was a freebie handed out at some event. Presumably that wouldn't be a "niche" calculator.
If I google "chain calculator" the results I get are for bicycle chains. If I go on Amazon and search for "chain calculator", I get calculators on keychains. You seem to have made this term up, and I have no idea how, even if I didn't have a calculator lying around, I would go and find this niche product.
But a four-function calculator, or a stackless calculator - these are all terms I understand. And on such calculators - 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 25.
It's strange, isn't it, how you have to accuse developers and project managers with decades of experience of inexplicably introducing inexcusable bugs into calculator software (even though they can make scientific calculator modes work correctly!), can't bring yourself to admit that such calculators were normal, yet there's such a simple explanation! They're emulating basic four-function calculators that have existed for decades.
Lol OK kiddo!
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 🤣🤣🤣
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.
Yes it does, because "I never use drugs" isn't the same as "I have never used drugs" 🙄
I absolutely didn't Mr. I can only find it in a 1912 textbook 🤣🤣🤣
says person trying to bring a 1912 textbook into the argument only to avoid admitting having been wrong 🙄
So not like you, which I'm not 😂
It's already there in the use of the present tense
And it specifically says you are wrong 🙄
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
statement of fact
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 🙄
17
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.
No they're not! Just like they're also not emulating Scientific calculators that have existed for decades! 🤣🤣🤣