says person who has no evidence whatsoever to show that they are correct, so as I said, no matter how many times you repeat it, you are still wrong 😂
You never asked for citations.
And the questions I did ask you didn’t answer anyway, because you know in both cases it proves you wrong. Notice how I didn’t need you to ask me for evidence to produce it? That’s what people who are backed up by facts can do 😂
you did it for me with your screenshot
Which proved you were wrong 😂
But here you go
Well, here you go proving you have a severe comprehension problem anyway… 😂
Multiplying by a number is the same as dividing by its reciprocal and vice versa
Yep, gives the same result, but does not say that the number and it’s inverse are the same thing 😂
Here’s another source if you’re allergic to Wikipedia
Which also wasn’t a Maths textbook 😂 So far you’re only proving my point that you can’t cite any Maths textbooks that agree with you
Again, the mnemonics, when taught without appropriate context
Which they never are
cause people to think that 9-3+2 is 4
Nope, no-one thinks that. Addition first for 9-3+2 is +(9+2)-3=+11-3=8 same correct answer as left to right, which is why the textbook teaches you to do it that way 😂
If you understand what is multiplication and what is addition
Which you’re demonstrated repeatedly that you don’t, and here we are
who think that the order of operations is set to: Multiplication → Division → Addition → Subtraction
Which is a totally valid thing to do, as is taught by the textbook 🙄
instead of being (M or D, start from the left) → (A or S, start from the left)
Which is also a valid thing to do. That’s the whole point, it does not matter which order you do addition and subtraction 😂
when the actual result is 8, because they think that they have to calculate the addition first
And when they do calculate the addition first, they get an answer of 8, as I just proved a few comments back 😂 Add all the positive numbers, then subtract the total of all the negative numbers. This is so not complicated, and yet you seem to have trouble understanding it
Where did you get the 1 and 3 from?
From an example of how 2+2 and 1+3 aren’t the same thing, even though they equal the same value, which you are now trying to avoid addressing because you know it proves you are wrong 😂
Do you not know what fractions are…?
I’m starting to wonder if you do, given you think 2/2 is the same thing as 2x½ - one has a fraction, the other doesn’t, but you think they are the same thing 🙄
You’re so very, very confused by all of this
says person not remembering that they brought it up to begin with… 😂
you have absolutely fundamental lacks in understanding of maths
says person who thinks doing addition first for 9-3+2 is 4 😂
maths textbooks all over the world use brackets all the time
Not for 2-2 they don’t. Go ahead and cite one. I’ll wait
you can write 2 - 2 as -2 + 2, or - a slightly less legible version - as 2 + -2. You’ll get the same result, and this inversion is a perfectly “legal” mathematical operation. Which shows you how addition and subtraction are equal
Which proves my point that you can do addition and subtraction in any order, given you just admitted that 2-2 and -2+2 give the same result 😂
One more time, let me
deflect from the point, yet again
We were not talking about monomials
No, we were talking about textbooks teaching to do addition first, and you then deflected into talking about monomials, because you knew it proved you were wrong 😂
If you set the pronumerals in addition/subtraction problems to 1, you would have
The exact same thing as an expression written without pronumerals 😂 I see you’re still not understanding how pronumerals work then
difference between -2 + 2 and 2 - 2 is the same, proving - again - that subtraction is equal to addition of a negative
and thus proving again that they can be done in any order 😂 It’s so hilarious watching you prove yourself wrong
Which is my point. Which you are proving
No, you’re actually proving my point 🤣
I didn’t have to, you did it for me.
I only posted things that prove you wrong, but apparently I don’t need to because you are proving yourself wrong 🤣
Now do -(2+4) + (1+3) and guess what you have?
The exact same answer, -2, again proving you can do them in any order 🤣
I already suggested this: read it again, but slower.
It still says add all positive numbers first, then subtract the total of the negative numbers. I’m not sure what you think is going to happen - are you expecting the words to magically change if you read it slowly? 🤣
Yes, because I finished third grade in primary school. Do you also expect evidence of gravity?
And the questions I did ask you didn’t answer anyway
Go back and read the comments again. I know they’re getting lengthy, but I’m sure if you put your mind to it, you can find the answers.
Which proved you were wrong
Yeah, if you ignore what the text says and just assume it does what you want, then sure, it proves me wrong. However, if you actually read the letters on the screenshot, you’ll find that it does not, in fact, prove me wrong, it does the opposite.
Well, here you go proving you have a severe comprehension problem anyway… 😂
Oh wow, so you’re also incapable of scrolling down to the sources part of the article…?
Yep, gives the same result, but does not say that the number and it’s inverse are the same thing 😂
Yeah, speaking of reading comprehension - I never said anything like that. I said that, in terms of the order of operations, addition/subtraction and multiplication/division are equal, because they can be inverted (subtraction into addition of negative numbers, division into multiplication of fractions) to achieve, as you observed, the exact same result. Which means that - if you ensure that children learn and understand that concept, you can skip subtraction and division from the mnemonics, because children will understand that - again, in terms of order of operations - division = multiplication, and subtraction = addition.
Which also wasn’t a Maths textbook
OK, how about this: let’s do what grown up mathematicians do: prove that what I linked to is wrong.
Which they never are (…) Nope, no-one thinks that
One more time: welcome to the Internet, I’m sure you’ll find many surprises here, but overall it’s a pretty great place.
Addition first for 9-3+2 is +(9+2)-3=+11-3=8 same correct answer as left to right, which is why the textbook teaches you to do it that way
I like how you’re doing exactly what I’m talking about while still saying I’m incorrect.
Which you’re demonstrated repeatedly that you don’t, and here we are
OK, sure, quote one example equation I did here that proves I’m not understanding these concepts. :)
Which is a totally valid thing to do, as is taught by the textbook
But is not reinforced by the mnemonic itself. Reading comprehension, remember?
Which is also a valid thing to do. That’s the whole point, it does not matter which order you do addition and subtraction 😂
I’m glad I was able to explain this to you. You go ahead and pretend like you’re explaining it to me, I’m just happy you finally managed to understand that.
And when they do calculate the addition first, they get an answer of 8, as I just proved a few comments back 😂 Add all the positive numbers, then subtract the total of all the negative numbers. This is so not complicated, and yet you seem to have trouble understanding it
See above.
From an example of how 2+2 and 1+3 aren’t the same thing, even though they equal the same value, which you are now trying to avoid addressing because you know it proves you are wrong 😂
Why are you bringing 1 + 3 into the mix when the examples were 2 + 2 and 2 * 2? What are you trying to say here?
I’m starting to wonder if you do, given you think 2/2 is the same thing as 2x½ - one has a fraction, the other doesn’t, but you think they are the same thing 🙄
I’m going to ask you a couple of questions so you can research that and then pretend to explain them to me, like you did above:
What is the result of 2 / 2?
What is the result of 2 * ½?
What is the reciprocal of 2?
says person not remembering that they brought it up to begin with… 😂
There’s no confusion from my side. I understand how brackets work and that was a perfectly valid use - for readability’s sake.
says person who thinks doing addition first for 9-3+2 is 4
Now you’re just inventing things I never said. That’s not nice.
Not for 2-2 they don’t. Go ahead and cite one. I’ll wait
It wasn’t 2 - 2, tho. Or did you fail to read that correctly too?
Which proves my point that you can do addition and subtraction in any order, given you just admitted that 2-2 and -2+2 give the same result 😂
Again, I’m glad you’re slowly getting to the point I was making. It’s weird how you’re still phrasing it like I was somehow wrong, but I’m just happy you learned something.
The exact same thing as an expression written without pronumerals 😂 I see you’re still not understanding how pronumerals work then
Considering that’s exactly what I did, how do you see that as me not understanding pronumerals? I’m asking out of sheer curiosity at this point.
and thus proving again that they can be done in any order 😂 It’s so hilarious watching you prove yourself wrong (…) [and the rest of the comment]
You’re so cute when you’re trying to turn this whole argument on its head after realising how silly your initial points were! <3
Yes, because I finished third grade in primary school
Which would explain why you don’t know The Distributive Law, which is taught in Year 7
Do you also expect evidence of gravity?
No, just evidence to back up your claims, but of course you don’t have any
Go back and read the comments again
You know reading things again doesn’t change what’s written right?? No, you don’t, since you kept asking me to re-read the part about doing all addition first, thinking somehow that was magically going to change if I read it again 😂
you can find the answers
Nope! Hard to find when you didn’t answer, and notably you’ve not done a screenshot of them, because they don’t exist. Weird how you’re the only one not able to back up anything of what you’ve said 😂
Yeah, if you ignore what the text says
which you just did, again, because you know it proves you are wrong 😂 Why are you so afraid to quote it if you think it proves you are right? 😂
However, if you actually read the letters on the screenshot, you’ll find that it does
still say, do all addition first
you’re also incapable of scrolling down to the sources part of the article…?
Well, apparently you are, since there are no Maths textbooks listed in the sources 😂
I never said anything like that
Let’s go to the screenshot…
I said that, in terms of the order of operations, addition/subtraction and multiplication/division are equal, because they can be inverted (subtraction into addition of negative numbers, division into multiplication of fractions) to achieve
Nope, see screenshot of you saying they are the same
understand that concept, you can skip subtraction and division from the mnemonics
Now you’re just rehashing the same already-debunked rubbish. The whole point of the mnemonics is for those who don’t understand, just follow these steps 🙄
prove that what I linked to is wrong
Did that already with the textbooks and worked examples. Maybe you need to read it slowly? 😂
One more time: welcome to the Internet
One more time, welcome to you can’t debunk what I said, so you deflect
I like how you’re doing exactly what I’m talking about while still saying I’m incorrect
Nope. Again let’s go to the screenshot…
quote one example equation I did here that proves I’m not understanding these concepts. :)
See previous screenshot 😂
But is not reinforced by the mnemonic itself
AS doesn’t reinforce doing A before S? 😂
Reading comprehension, remember?
Yep, you’ve got none. You thought Wikipedia counted as a Maths textbook 😂
I’m glad I was able to explain this to you
I knew it all along - you were the one saying that the brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS), which we’ve now comprehensively debunked 😂
See above
Yep, you finally proved yourself wrong because the mental gymnastics weren’t up to proving that brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS) 😂
when the examples were 2 + 2 and 2 * 2?
No they weren’t! You have such a short memory, no wonder you ended up contradicting yourself! 🤣 Let’s go to the screenshot…
I’m going to ask you a couple of questions so
you can deflect again 😂
I understand how brackets work and that was a perfectly valid use
Nope, we proved it wasn’t 😂
says person who thinks doing addition first for 9-3+2 is 4
Now you’re just inventing things I never said.
Let’s go to the screenshot… 😂
It wasn’t 2 - 2, tho
Let’s go to the screenshot, again…
Or did you fail to read that correctly too?
Not me. See previous screenshot 😂
Again, I’m glad you’re slowly getting to the point I was making
Nope. your point that brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS) is still wrong, as proven 😂
It’s weird how you’re still phrasing it like I was somehow wrong
says person who proved it was wrong 😂
Considering that’s exactly what I did
Nope! You claimed it was entirely different if you did that. Again, let’s go to the screenshot…
You’re so cute when you’re trying to turn this whole argument on its head after realising how silly your initial points were!
says the person actually trying to do that, as proven by the screenshots 😂
Which would explain why you don’t know The Distributive Law, which is taught in Year 7
Me: consistently using the Distributive Law throughout the thread.
You: “Which would explain why you don’t know The Distributive Law, which is taught in Year 7”
How does that work again?
No, just evidence to back up your claims, but of course you don’t have any
I showed you two, you showed yourself one - how many more do you need?
You know reading things again doesn’t change what’s written right??
True, but reading again carefully would change what you thought was written, friend.
still say, do all addition first
OK, here’s a challenge for you - quote the bit that says “do all addition first”.
Well, apparently you are, since there are no Maths textbooks listed in the sources
Awww, you’re so cute! You think all maths knowledge only comes from school textbooks! <3
Let’s go to the screenshot… (…) Nope, see screenshot of you saying they are the same
Ah, so you don’t know what “context” is. Got it. I’ll try to keep things easier to understand for you going forward.
Now you’re just rehashing the same already-debunked rubbish. The whole point of the mnemonics is for those who don’t understand, just follow these steps
In which case they will often make mistakes, as shown by the “9 minus whatever plus something” equation I did. Again, I get that you’re only on your “day two on the Internet” so you’re not aware of it, but these kinds of equations cause people A LOT of trouble.
Don’t get me wrong - I get what you’re saying. That if the people who don’t understand the order of operations understood the Distributive Law, then their lack of understanding of the order of operations wouldn’t matter. But, I hope, you get where this line of thinking fails, right?
Did that already with the textbooks and worked examples. Maybe you need to read it slowly?
Ah, so you’re saying that a site teaching maths is wrong, and your proof is the fact that you don’t understand how sentences work? Cool, cool.
Nope. Again let’s go to the screenshot…
Which proves what, in your mind…?
AS doesn’t reinforce doing A before S?
A is not before S. A is equal to S in the order of operations. As proven here, here, here or here, which also conveniently mentions the two different mnemonics in PEMDAS and BODMAS (where, I’m sure your keen eye will notice, the D and M are flipped).
Here’s a short quote from the second to last source:
Multiplication and division can be done together. In other words, it doesn’t matter if you do division or multiplication first, but they must be done after parentheses and exponents and before addition and subtraction. (…) Addition and subtraction also work together. You can do subtraction first, or you can do addition first. They are part of the same step, however, they can only be done after items in parentheses, exponents, and any multiplication and division.
So, there’s that.
Yep, you’ve got none. You thought Wikipedia counted as a Maths textbook
No, I thought you were capable of checking the sources on the bottom of the article. My bad. But now I also understand that you wouldn’t consider actual mathematical research as sources, because it needs to be a school book for you. I hope the university article links above will be good enough?
I knew it all along - you were the one saying that the brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS), which we’ve now comprehensively debunked 😂
You have an extremely weird fixation on brackets, friend. The only thing we’ve debunked is your understanding of mathematical fundamentals and reading skills. :(
No they weren’t! You have such a short memory, no wonder you ended up contradicting yourself! 🤣 Let’s go to the screenshot…
Oh no! You caught me on misremembering one of the couple of examples I gave you! NOOOOOO! My life is RUINED!
So now, again, why did you start talking about 1 + 3 if the examples were 2 - 2 and 2 / 2?
you can deflect again 😂
Awww… You can’t answer these questions? I mean, I’m not surprised considering what you’ve shown so far but I was hoping you’d at least try.
Let’s go to the screenshot, again…
And where are the brackets, friend? Do your keen eyes see (2-2) or whatever, or 2+(-2)?
But, as I see you’ll just never let go of this misconception of yours, here you are:
1.7 Negative numbers and the use of brackets
Rules of negative numbers
The rules for using negative numbers can be summarised as follows:
Addition and subtraction
Adding a negative number is the same as subtracting a positive 50 + (-30) = 50 – 30 = 20
Subtracting a negative number is the same as adding a positive 50 – (-30) = 50 + 30 = 80
You can see the exact same notation as I used, in the exact same context. When you read the rest of that Level 1 introductory lesson, you’ll also learn that you can actually ONLY use brackets to denote negative numbers, like so: 2 + (2), which would equal to 2 - 2. Incredible, I know!
Nope. your point that brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS) is still wrong, as proven 😂
I mean… Come on - brackets DO matter in PEMDAS, they’re the very first item on the list (Brackets == Parentheses). You’re getting all confused here.
As to the notation of “PE(MD)(AS)” - you may be surprised to learn, but brackets used in the context of language don’t mean the same thing as brackets used in the context of maths, which means that the “(MD)” doesn’t somehow mean I was suggesting these should be considered to… always be in brackets? Like, I don’t even know what you were trying to say here.
says person who proved it was wrong 😂
Again, it’s OK to have a vivid imagination, but you’re just making yourself look silly when you talk about it with others as if it’s fact.
Nope! You claimed it was entirely different if you did that. Again, let’s go to the screenshot…
Yes, I agree, the way I worded that was poor. Setting pronumerals to 1 is the same as just removing them from the notation completely.
says the person actually trying to do that, as proven by the screenshots 😂
It’s OK, you already understood the core concept of what I meant, I firmly believe that we can get you to understand the whole thing within a week! :)
Me: consistently using the Distributive Law throughout the thread.
Nope. Let’s go to the screenshots again…
I showed you two
Nope, you showed Wikipedia, which is known to be wrong, as per Maths textbooks
True, but reading again carefully would change what you thought was written
Nope. Still says add all positive numbers first! 😂
You think all maths knowledge only comes from school textbooks!
Never said anything of the sort liar, which is why you’re unable to quote me saying that. I did say to you, repeatedly, that you are unable to cite any Maths textbooks that support you, and so far you have proven that to be true, since you haven’t cited any maths textbooks. You really do need to work on that poor comprehension of yours 😂
Nope, see screenshot of you saying they are the same
Nope! That was you! Here we go…
so you don’t know what “context” is
Says person who can’t even remember what he said, despite me posting screenshots of him saying it 😂
In which case they will often make mistakes, as shown by the “9 minus whatever plus something” equation I did
In which you failed that anyone at all has ever done it like that, other than you 😂
I get that you’re only on your “day two on the Internet” so you’re not aware of it, but these kinds of equations cause people A LOT of trouble
Says person who can’t show anyone having trouble with it, thus revealing himself as the Day 2 person 😂
I get what you’re saying. That if
Where you then went on to say something completely unrelated to anything I said, thus proving you don’t get what I’m saying 😂
I hope, you get where this line of thinking fails, right?
Which would maybe be why I never said anything of the sort 😂
so you’re saying that a site teaching maths is wrong
Yep, there’s a lot of them. Welcome to what happens when people don’t have to have Maths qualifications to write a Maths website. Welcome to the Internet Day 2 person! 😂
your proof is
Maths textbooks
A is not before S
So, it’s not bedmAS and pemdAS?? 😂
A is equal to S in the order of operations
Which means you can do them in any order, including doing A BEFORE S, a concept you are having a lot of trouble with 😂 having claimed that led people to get wrong answers, like 9-3+2=4, which so far you’ve not shown anyone making that mistake other than you 😂
PEMDAS and BODMAS (where, I’m sure your keen eye will notice, the D and M are flipped)
and are not written as PE(MD)(AS) and BE(DM)(AS), which you claimed is important to remember, and still haven’t backed up with any evidence whatsoever! 😂
Addition and subtraction also work together. You can do subtraction first, or you can do addition first
Yep, as I’ve been telling you all along. So where’s this bit about “it’s important to remember PE(MD)(AS)” then? Not anywhere in this source 😂
So, there’s that
Which doesn’t support your argument that it’s PE(MD)(AS), so there’s that 😂
I thought you were capable of checking the sources on the bottom of the article.
Which also weren’t Maths textbooks, as I already pointed out to you 😂
wouldn’t consider actual mathematical research as sources
Mr. Lack of Comprehension still not understanding the words MATHS TEXTBOOKS 🤣🤣🤣
I hope the university article links above will be good enough?
Do you need to get your mum to read this out to you to spot the difference between the phrases “Maths textbooks” and “University article”? 😂
You have an extremely weird fixation on brackets
You were the one who made the claim about the brackets. I’m just debunking your rubbish claim about the brackets 😂
The only thing we’ve debunked is your understanding of mathematical fundamentals and reading skills.
says someone who can’t tell the difference between Maths textbooks, and any one of a dozen other things 😂
You caught me on misremembering one of the couple of examples I gave you!
Lying is the word you’re looking for, and more than a couple
So now, again, why did you start talking about 1 + 3 if the examples were 2 - 2 and 2 / 2?
Take you own advice - go back and read it slowly this time 😂 Still says the same thing as when I first said it
Awww… You can’t answer these questions?
No, you can’t defend your claim, so you keep deflecting
And where are the brackets, friend?
Speaking of being fixated on brackets 😂
as I see you’ll just never let go of this misconception of yours, here you are:
Still not a Maths textbook. Have you noticed yet that you haven’t been able to cite any Maths textbook that supports your claims?? 😂
You can see the exact same notation as I used
That wasn’t from a Maths textbook
When you read the rest of that Level 1 introductory lesson
It still won’t be a Maths textbook
it’s OK to have a vivid imagination, but you’re just making yourself look silly when you talk about it with others as if it’s fact
The proof is in this thread 😂
Setting pronumerals to 1 is the same as just removing them from the notation completely
which means it is totally valid to add all positive numbers first, as per the textbook which had an example with pronumerals and did just that😂
I firmly believe that we can get you to understand the whole thing within a week!
says person who still doesn’t understand what the words “Maths textbooks” MEANS 😂
I skimmed through it, I’m glad you learned some new concepts, still find it hilarious that you’re then trying to turn it around and pretend like I didn’t understand something, but it’s all good fun.
Enjoy your newfound knowledge and maybe work on not being so prickly.
I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong then
I skimmed through it, I’m glad you learned some new concepts
I’ve no idea whose comments you skimmed through, but clearly not mine. I’ve been saying the same thing from start to finish, and you eventually contradicted yourself 😂
you’re then trying to turn it around and pretend like I didn’t understand something
That would be because you are replying to my reply to them and not my reply to you, which makes you the incompetent fraud 😂
It’s easy to lose track when literally everyone is calling out your bullshit
says someone who actually lost track and is replying to my reply to someone else 😂
Here’s you quoting a textbook that says to solve inside the brackets first, even without a mulitply sign.
In other words, The Distributive Law, as I’ve been saying all along, yes, and your point is?
Here’s you quoting a textbook that says you must do the opposite of that.
Nope! Says the exact same thing - Distribute BEFORE REMOVING BRACKETS which is exactly what the previous one did. I have no idea why you think they contradict each other 😂
And as a bonus, here’s you getting 2(3+5)2 wrong.
Nope! Getting it right, Brackets before exponents, as per the order of operations rules, found in Maths textbooks 😂
I am looking for how to politely contact your instance’s admins about your behavior.
Because there’s something wrong with fact checking?? 😂 Students usually appreciate finding out where they went wrong, but not you, obviously, and somehow that’s an issue for an admin?? 😂
says person who has no evidence whatsoever to show that they are correct, so as I said, no matter how many times you repeat it, you are still wrong 😂
And the questions I did ask you didn’t answer anyway, because you know in both cases it proves you wrong. Notice how I didn’t need you to ask me for evidence to produce it? That’s what people who are backed up by facts can do 😂
Which proved you were wrong 😂
Well, here you go proving you have a severe comprehension problem anyway… 😂
Yep, gives the same result, but does not say that the number and it’s inverse are the same thing 😂
Which also wasn’t a Maths textbook 😂 So far you’re only proving my point that you can’t cite any Maths textbooks that agree with you
Which they never are
Nope, no-one thinks that. Addition first for 9-3+2 is +(9+2)-3=+11-3=8 same correct answer as left to right, which is why the textbook teaches you to do it that way 😂
Which you’re demonstrated repeatedly that you don’t, and here we are
Which is a totally valid thing to do, as is taught by the textbook 🙄
Which is also a valid thing to do. That’s the whole point, it does not matter which order you do addition and subtraction 😂
And when they do calculate the addition first, they get an answer of 8, as I just proved a few comments back 😂 Add all the positive numbers, then subtract the total of all the negative numbers. This is so not complicated, and yet you seem to have trouble understanding it
From an example of how 2+2 and 1+3 aren’t the same thing, even though they equal the same value, which you are now trying to avoid addressing because you know it proves you are wrong 😂
I’m starting to wonder if you do, given you think 2/2 is the same thing as 2x½ - one has a fraction, the other doesn’t, but you think they are the same thing 🙄
says person not remembering that they brought it up to begin with… 😂
says person who thinks doing addition first for 9-3+2 is 4 😂
Not for 2-2 they don’t. Go ahead and cite one. I’ll wait
Which proves my point that you can do addition and subtraction in any order, given you just admitted that 2-2 and -2+2 give the same result 😂
deflect from the point, yet again
No, we were talking about textbooks teaching to do addition first, and you then deflected into talking about monomials, because you knew it proved you were wrong 😂
The exact same thing as an expression written without pronumerals 😂 I see you’re still not understanding how pronumerals work then
and thus proving again that they can be done in any order 😂 It’s so hilarious watching you prove yourself wrong
No, you’re actually proving my point 🤣
I only posted things that prove you wrong, but apparently I don’t need to because you are proving yourself wrong 🤣
The exact same answer, -2, again proving you can do them in any order 🤣
It still says add all positive numbers first, then subtract the total of the negative numbers. I’m not sure what you think is going to happen - are you expecting the words to magically change if you read it slowly? 🤣
Yes, because I finished third grade in primary school. Do you also expect evidence of gravity?
Go back and read the comments again. I know they’re getting lengthy, but I’m sure if you put your mind to it, you can find the answers.
Yeah, if you ignore what the text says and just assume it does what you want, then sure, it proves me wrong. However, if you actually read the letters on the screenshot, you’ll find that it does not, in fact, prove me wrong, it does the opposite.
Oh wow, so you’re also incapable of scrolling down to the sources part of the article…?
Yeah, speaking of reading comprehension - I never said anything like that. I said that, in terms of the order of operations, addition/subtraction and multiplication/division are equal, because they can be inverted (subtraction into addition of negative numbers, division into multiplication of fractions) to achieve, as you observed, the exact same result. Which means that - if you ensure that children learn and understand that concept, you can skip subtraction and division from the mnemonics, because children will understand that - again, in terms of order of operations - division = multiplication, and subtraction = addition.
OK, how about this: let’s do what grown up mathematicians do: prove that what I linked to is wrong.
One more time: welcome to the Internet, I’m sure you’ll find many surprises here, but overall it’s a pretty great place.
I like how you’re doing exactly what I’m talking about while still saying I’m incorrect.
OK, sure, quote one example equation I did here that proves I’m not understanding these concepts. :)
But is not reinforced by the mnemonic itself. Reading comprehension, remember?
I’m glad I was able to explain this to you. You go ahead and pretend like you’re explaining it to me, I’m just happy you finally managed to understand that.
See above.
Why are you bringing
1 + 3into the mix when the examples were2 + 2and2 * 2? What are you trying to say here?I’m going to ask you a couple of questions so you can research that and then pretend to explain them to me, like you did above:
2 / 2?2 * ½?There’s no confusion from my side. I understand how brackets work and that was a perfectly valid use - for readability’s sake.
Now you’re just inventing things I never said. That’s not nice.
It wasn’t
2 - 2, tho. Or did you fail to read that correctly too?Again, I’m glad you’re slowly getting to the point I was making. It’s weird how you’re still phrasing it like I was somehow wrong, but I’m just happy you learned something.
Considering that’s exactly what I did, how do you see that as me not understanding pronumerals? I’m asking out of sheer curiosity at this point.
You’re so cute when you’re trying to turn this whole argument on its head after realising how silly your initial points were! <3
Which would explain why you don’t know The Distributive Law, which is taught in Year 7
No, just evidence to back up your claims, but of course you don’t have any
You know reading things again doesn’t change what’s written right?? No, you don’t, since you kept asking me to re-read the part about doing all addition first, thinking somehow that was magically going to change if I read it again 😂
Nope! Hard to find when you didn’t answer, and notably you’ve not done a screenshot of them, because they don’t exist. Weird how you’re the only one not able to back up anything of what you’ve said 😂
which you just did, again, because you know it proves you are wrong 😂 Why are you so afraid to quote it if you think it proves you are right? 😂
still say, do all addition first
Well, apparently you are, since there are no Maths textbooks listed in the sources 😂
Let’s go to the screenshot…
Nope, see screenshot of you saying they are the same
Now you’re just rehashing the same already-debunked rubbish. The whole point of the mnemonics is for those who don’t understand, just follow these steps 🙄
Did that already with the textbooks and worked examples. Maybe you need to read it slowly? 😂
One more time, welcome to you can’t debunk what I said, so you deflect
Nope. Again let’s go to the screenshot…
See previous screenshot 😂
AS doesn’t reinforce doing A before S? 😂
Yep, you’ve got none. You thought Wikipedia counted as a Maths textbook 😂
I knew it all along - you were the one saying that the brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS), which we’ve now comprehensively debunked 😂
Yep, you finally proved yourself wrong because the mental gymnastics weren’t up to proving that brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS) 😂
No they weren’t! You have such a short memory, no wonder you ended up contradicting yourself! 🤣 Let’s go to the screenshot…
you can deflect again 😂
Nope, we proved it wasn’t 😂
Let’s go to the screenshot… 😂
Let’s go to the screenshot, again…
Not me. See previous screenshot 😂
Nope. your point that brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS) is still wrong, as proven 😂
says person who proved it was wrong 😂
Nope! You claimed it was entirely different if you did that. Again, let’s go to the screenshot…
says the person actually trying to do that, as proven by the screenshots 😂
Me: consistently using the Distributive Law throughout the thread.
You: “Which would explain why you don’t know The Distributive Law, which is taught in Year 7”
How does that work again?
I showed you two, you showed yourself one - how many more do you need?
True, but reading again carefully would change what you thought was written, friend.
OK, here’s a challenge for you - quote the bit that says “do all addition first”.
Awww, you’re so cute! You think all maths knowledge only comes from school textbooks! <3
Ah, so you don’t know what “context” is. Got it. I’ll try to keep things easier to understand for you going forward.
In which case they will often make mistakes, as shown by the “9 minus whatever plus something” equation I did. Again, I get that you’re only on your “day two on the Internet” so you’re not aware of it, but these kinds of equations cause people A LOT of trouble.
Don’t get me wrong - I get what you’re saying. That if the people who don’t understand the order of operations understood the Distributive Law, then their lack of understanding of the order of operations wouldn’t matter. But, I hope, you get where this line of thinking fails, right?
Ah, so you’re saying that a site teaching maths is wrong, and your proof is the fact that you don’t understand how sentences work? Cool, cool.
Which proves what, in your mind…?
A is not before S. A is equal to S in the order of operations. As proven here, here, here or here, which also conveniently mentions the two different mnemonics in PEMDAS and BODMAS (where, I’m sure your keen eye will notice, the D and M are flipped).
Here’s a short quote from the second to last source:
So, there’s that.
No, I thought you were capable of checking the sources on the bottom of the article. My bad. But now I also understand that you wouldn’t consider actual mathematical research as sources, because it needs to be a school book for you. I hope the university article links above will be good enough?
You have an extremely weird fixation on brackets, friend. The only thing we’ve debunked is your understanding of mathematical fundamentals and reading skills. :(
Oh no! You caught me on misremembering one of the couple of examples I gave you! NOOOOOO! My life is RUINED!
So now, again, why did you start talking about
1 + 3if the examples were2 - 2and2 / 2?Awww… You can’t answer these questions? I mean, I’m not surprised considering what you’ve shown so far but I was hoping you’d at least try.
And where are the brackets, friend? Do your keen eyes see
(2-2)or whatever, or2+(-2)?But, as I see you’ll just never let go of this misconception of yours, here you are:
You can see the exact same notation as I used, in the exact same context. When you read the rest of that Level 1 introductory lesson, you’ll also learn that you can actually ONLY use brackets to denote negative numbers, like so:
2 + (2), which would equal to2 - 2. Incredible, I know!I mean… Come on - brackets DO matter in PEMDAS, they’re the very first item on the list (Brackets == Parentheses). You’re getting all confused here.
As to the notation of “PE(MD)(AS)” - you may be surprised to learn, but brackets used in the context of language don’t mean the same thing as brackets used in the context of maths, which means that the “(MD)” doesn’t somehow mean I was suggesting these should be considered to… always be in brackets? Like, I don’t even know what you were trying to say here.
Again, it’s OK to have a vivid imagination, but you’re just making yourself look silly when you talk about it with others as if it’s fact.
Yes, I agree, the way I worded that was poor. Setting pronumerals to 1 is the same as just removing them from the notation completely.
It’s OK, you already understood the core concept of what I meant, I firmly believe that we can get you to understand the whole thing within a week! :)
Nope. Let’s go to the screenshots again…
Nope, you showed Wikipedia, which is known to be wrong, as per Maths textbooks
Nope. Still says add all positive numbers first! 😂
Never said anything of the sort liar, which is why you’re unable to quote me saying that. I did say to you, repeatedly, that you are unable to cite any Maths textbooks that support you, and so far you have proven that to be true, since you haven’t cited any maths textbooks. You really do need to work on that poor comprehension of yours 😂
Nope! That was you! Here we go…
Says person who can’t even remember what he said, despite me posting screenshots of him saying it 😂
In which you failed that anyone at all has ever done it like that, other than you 😂
Says person who can’t show anyone having trouble with it, thus revealing himself as the Day 2 person 😂
Where you then went on to say something completely unrelated to anything I said, thus proving you don’t get what I’m saying 😂
Which would maybe be why I never said anything of the sort 😂
Yep, there’s a lot of them. Welcome to what happens when people don’t have to have Maths qualifications to write a Maths website. Welcome to the Internet Day 2 person! 😂
Maths textbooks
So, it’s not bedmAS and pemdAS?? 😂
Which means you can do them in any order, including doing A BEFORE S, a concept you are having a lot of trouble with 😂 having claimed that led people to get wrong answers, like 9-3+2=4, which so far you’ve not shown anyone making that mistake other than you 😂
and are not written as PE(MD)(AS) and BE(DM)(AS), which you claimed is important to remember, and still haven’t backed up with any evidence whatsoever! 😂
Yep, as I’ve been telling you all along. So where’s this bit about “it’s important to remember PE(MD)(AS)” then? Not anywhere in this source 😂
Which doesn’t support your argument that it’s PE(MD)(AS), so there’s that 😂
Which also weren’t Maths textbooks, as I already pointed out to you 😂
Mr. Lack of Comprehension still not understanding the words MATHS TEXTBOOKS 🤣🤣🤣
Do you need to get your mum to read this out to you to spot the difference between the phrases “Maths textbooks” and “University article”? 😂
You were the one who made the claim about the brackets. I’m just debunking your rubbish claim about the brackets 😂
says someone who can’t tell the difference between Maths textbooks, and any one of a dozen other things 😂
Lying is the word you’re looking for, and more than a couple
Take you own advice - go back and read it slowly this time 😂 Still says the same thing as when I first said it
No, you can’t defend your claim, so you keep deflecting
Speaking of being fixated on brackets 😂
Still not a Maths textbook. Have you noticed yet that you haven’t been able to cite any Maths textbook that supports your claims?? 😂
That wasn’t from a Maths textbook
It still won’t be a Maths textbook
The proof is in this thread 😂
which means it is totally valid to add all positive numbers first, as per the textbook which had an example with pronumerals and did just that😂
says person who still doesn’t understand what the words “Maths textbooks” MEANS 😂
Sorry, mate, TLDR.
I skimmed through it, I’m glad you learned some new concepts, still find it hilarious that you’re then trying to turn it around and pretend like I didn’t understand something, but it’s all good fun.
Enjoy your newfound knowledge and maybe work on not being so prickly.
I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong then
I’ve no idea whose comments you skimmed through, but clearly not mine. I’ve been saying the same thing from start to finish, and you eventually contradicted yourself 😂
says someone trying to pretend he did 😂
Whatever makes you feel better. :)
You incompetent fraud, that’s a different person - me. It’s easy to lose track when literally everyone is calling out your bullshit.
Here’s you quoting a textbook that says to solve inside the brackets first, even without a mulitply sign.
Here’s you quoting a textbook that says you must do the opposite of that.
And as a bonus, here’s you getting 2(3+5)2 wrong.
I am looking for how to politely contact your instance’s admins about your behavior.
That would be because you are replying to my reply to them and not my reply to you, which makes you the incompetent fraud 😂
says someone who actually lost track and is replying to my reply to someone else 😂
In other words, The Distributive Law, as I’ve been saying all along, yes, and your point is?
Nope! Says the exact same thing - Distribute BEFORE REMOVING BRACKETS which is exactly what the previous one did. I have no idea why you think they contradict each other 😂
Nope! Getting it right, Brackets before exponents, as per the order of operations rules, found in Maths textbooks 😂
Because there’s something wrong with fact checking?? 😂 Students usually appreciate finding out where they went wrong, but not you, obviously, and somehow that’s an issue for an admin?? 😂