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 🤣🤣🤣
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Says person refusing to acknowledge that it’s in textbooks the difference between conventions and rules 🤣🤣🤣
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 🤣🤣🤣
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 🤣🤣🤣
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 *do., That’s why the rules get mentioned once at the start of the blog - it’s the same rules duuuhhh!!! 🤣🤣🤣
PEMDAS isn’t the rules, it’s a convention
I won’t take anything but textbooks, and you’ve still come up with none
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
of a Maths textbook, with the name of the textbook in the top left, and the page number also in the top left. 🤣🤣🤣
Yep, says nothing about operator precedence being tied to the notation, exactly as I just said, so that’s a fail from you then
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.
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. 🙄
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 🤣🤣🤣
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
says person revealing they don’t know anything about order of operations 🤣🤣🤣 Make sure you let all the textbook authors know as well 🤣🤣🤣
No, Brackets are done first.
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.
The Property will, the Law isn’t
No, Brackets are always done first
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
Right, it’s a proof of the order of operations rules for Brackets 🙄
It isn’t, it’s a convention
It’s true by definition. There’s nothing complex about it. Just like ab=(axb) is true by definition
It isn’t, it’s a convention. Not sure how many times you need to be told that 🙄
You mean like textbook snippets stating that The Distributive Law is the reverse operation to Factorising?? See above 🤣🤣🤣