267
submitted 1 month ago by Mog_Spawn@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FishFace@piefed.social -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You have declined to admit to a simple error you made (that early calculators lacked a stack, and that basic four function calculators all did and still do)

There's no point having a discussion with someone so stubborn that they can't admit a single mistake. I'm not sure whether you're trying to wind people up or just a bit dim, but while it's fun explaining mathematics - especially parts like this which touch on the formal parts and the distinction between maths itself and mathematical convention - this conversation is like trying to explain something to a particularly stuck-up dog. Except dogs aren't capable of being snarky.

The real tragedy is that you claim to be out there teaching kids this overcomplicated and false drivel.

Anyway, if you want to continue the discussion - maybe with a whiteboard would be best - I'm quite happy to, but only if you show that you're not just a troll. You can do that by admitting that you were wrong to say that all calculators have stacks, which shouldn't be hard if you have a shred of honesty, because I showed you two examples.

Another way you could demonstrate your good faith by admitting a mistake is admitting that when you said, in this post that:

Maths textbooks never use the word โ€œjuxtapositionโ€

you were wrong, and that this screenshot which I believe you first linked demonstrates it. In case that image disappears, it's from Advanced Algebra by J.V. Collins, pg 6.

On page 3, the concept of juxtaposition is introduced.

So that's an extra way you could demonstrate your good faith, by admitting to an error on your part not central to your argument that will show you actually are capable of admitting error.

[-] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

You have declined to admit to a simple error you made

Not me, must be you! ๐Ÿ˜‚

that early calculators lacked a stack,

They didn't ๐Ÿ™„

that basic four function calculators all did and still do

Have a stack, yes. I have one and it quite happily says that 2+3x4=14, something it can't do without putting "2+" on the stack while it does the 3x4 first ๐Ÿ™„

Thereโ€™s no point having a discussion with someone so stubborn that they canโ€™t admit a single mistake.

says someone too stubborn to admit making a mistake ๐Ÿ™„

Iโ€™m not sure whether youโ€™re trying to wind people up or just a bit dim

Neither. I'm the one doing fact-checks with actual, you know, facts, like my simple calculator having a stack and correctly evaluating 2+3x4=14. It's the one I had in Primary school. The one in the first manual works the exact same way

this conversation is like trying to explain something to a particularly stuck-up dog

So maybe start listening to what I've been trying to tell you then. ๐Ÿ™„ It's all there in textbooks, if you just decide to read more than 2 sentences out of them.

The real tragedy is that you claim to be out there teaching kids this overcomplicated and false drivel.

Facts, as per the syllabus and Maths textbooks. Again, you need to read more than 2 sentences to discover that ๐Ÿ™„

only if you show that youโ€™re not just a troll.

says person who has thus far refused to read more than 2 sentences out of the textbook ๐Ÿ™„

You can do that by admitting that you were wrong to say that all calculators have stacks

I wasn't wrong ๐Ÿ™„ The first manual that was linked to proved it. If you don't press the +/= button before the multiply then it will put the first part on the stack and evaluate the multiplication first, something it doesn't do if you press the +/= first to make it evaluate what you have typed in so far. ๐Ÿ™„ Every calculator will evaluate what you have typed in so far if you press the equals button, as pointed out in the first manual

because I showed you two examples

The first of which had a stack ๐Ÿ™„ the second of which was a chain calculator, designed to work that way. You're the one being dishonest

you were wrong

No I wasn't

that this screenshot

Which is a 1912 textbook. It also calls Factorising "Collections", and The Distributive Law "The Law of Distribution", and Products "Multiplication". Guess what? The language has changed a little in the last 110 years ๐Ÿ™„

itโ€™s from Advanced Algebra by J.V. Collins, pg 6

Yep, published in 1912

On page 3, the concept of juxtaposition is introduced

And we now call them Products. ๐Ÿ™„ You can see them being called that in Modern Algebra, which was published in 1965. In fact, in Lennes' infamous 1917 letter, he used the word Product (but didn't understand, as shown by his letter), so the language had already changed then

admitting to an error on your part

There was no error. The language has changed since 1912 ๐Ÿ™„

you actually are capable of admitting error

Of course I am. Doesn't mean I'm going to "admit" to an error when there is none ๐Ÿ™„

this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
267 points (96.5% liked)

memes

20011 readers
119 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo 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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS