I dunno (piefed.cdn.blahaj.zone)
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 11 months ago (7 children)

It adds them in the background, so that you don’t have to - if it didn’t it would return wrong answers - you not having to type them in doesn’t mean they aren’t getting added

I don't think you understand mathematics above the 7th-grade level you brag about teaching. No bona fides will excuse how you've acted; you have to be better. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog, and you act like a child cosplaying a teacher that students hate.

RPN does not have parentheses, any more than standard notation can have a stack. The concept does not exist. Yet both forms of equation are equally valid, but different - in the same way as peasant multiplication versus new-math multiplication. I'm not saying this for your sake because you're a broken robot. But since you're spamming everyone in this two-week-old thread, some of them are going to scroll through wondering 'is this schmuck for real?,' and they deserve to know exactly how small-minded and stubborn you are.

You're basically out here demanding that multiplication can only be done in the peasant method, so if someone's explaining it without a list of doubled numbers, they 'can't admit they're wrong.' So you're going to henpeck them one line at a time, ignoring the many ways they try to politely explain you're being a pedantic troll, and pounding books that reflect knowledge as if they define knowledge, until they all give up trying to spoon-feed you your own visible failure to teach anyone anything. Nobody's walking away from these interactions like 'oh thanks, good to know, that's perfectly clear now.' It's wall-to-wall 'I don't think you're as smart as you think you are' and 'you're really missing the point' and 'if it always gets the same answer then there's no meaningful difference.'

Yet tour dogmatism is so blatant that you're assigning Buddha nature to parentheses. Your philosophy cannot comprehend a math notation where you're even merely overreaching, let alone mistaken - so parentheses flit into being, somewhere in a stack operation between two numbers at a time. 1 2 + 3 * is not an equation with parentheses. Order of operations is baked into the order of operands. The first time I explained this to you, you had never heard of it. Yet you immediately asserted you'd found something missed by all all other people, sites, and indeed holy texts maths books.

You are a crank. Trying to 'no u' about your absence of self-awareness does not work, because you didn't predict me showing up to harass people with grade-school math while not listening. What you're doing is troll behavior. If this is how you teach children, it's enforced learning by rote, and their understanding of even basic mathematics is permanently hobbled by your smile-and-repeat-yourself rhetorical style.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    I don’t think you understand mathematics above the 7th-grade level you brag about teaching

    I don't think you understand any of it, not even Year 7

    No bona fides will excuse how you’ve acted; you have to be better

    says person who refuses to look in Maths textbooks

    RPN does not have parentheses

    in the foreground. In the background it does or it would give wrong answers. You understand that apps can do things that you don't see, right??

    but different

    Only the notation is different, the rules are the same

    they deserve to know exactly how small-minded and stubborn you are

    says the person who refuses to look in Maths textbooks 😂

    as if they define knowledge

    Textbooks do indeed define the notation and rules. 1+1=2 is defined as the notation to use to show that I had 1 thing and now I have 2 things

    your own visible failure to teach anyone anything

    says person ignoring all the people who actually did learn from me. That would be the people who are open to being wrong about how they thought it was done

    Nobody’s walking away from these interactions like ‘oh thanks, good to know, that’s perfectly clear now.’

    Yes they are! 😂

    you’re assigning Buddha nature to parentheses

    No, just literal textbook definition, which you refuse to look at 😂

    1 2 + 3 * is not an equation with parentheses

    So the app adds them in the background. Do you think apps don't know how many "a" you're talking about if you don't write 1a? Guess what, it knows in the background that a=1a, and that the 1 in 1-2-3 is +1, etc. Not typing them in doesn't mean they aren't being added

    The first time I explained this to you, you had never heard of it.

    yet again you seem to have me confused with someone else. I have no idea what you're talking about

    You are a

    Maths teacher

    Trying to ‘no u’ about your absence of self-awareness does not work

    says person who refuses to look in Maths textbooks

    because you didn’t predict me

    gaslighters gonna gaslight - there's nothing unpredictable about that

    What you’re doing is

    teaching the rules of Maths

    If this is how you teach children, it’s enforced learning by rote

    No it isn't, because they, having seen it also in the textbook, understand how it works

    their understanding of even basic mathematics is permanently

    improved, because they don't sit there going "Nah nah nah, nah nah nah, I'm not listening and not looking in the textbook!" 😂

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (5 children)

    So the app adds them in the background.
    You understand that apps can do things that you don’t see, right??

    ...

    You are functionally illiterate.

    RPN is not an "app." RPN is a NOTATION. That's what the N is. It is a completely different way of doing math! It works on paper! You troll! It is a syntax for performing calculations using a stack-based method. There are no fucking parentheses - anywhere. It has no need for that concept. Operations use the top values on the stack. Order of operations is implicit in the order of operands, and completely different from the one thing you insist is both universal, and mutable, and a notation, and the rules, and whatever else lets you never shut the fuck up.

    Do you know anything that's not in a textbook for children?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    You are functionally illiterate

    says person who doesn't understand how apps work

    RPN is not an “app.”

    What do you think is behind the RPN calculators? A person?? 😂

    RPN is a NOTATION

    Yep, so is ALGEBRA 😂 The rules are independent of both

    That’s what the N is

    Yep, notation, not rules

    It is a completely different way of doing math!

    Nope! It's only a different NOTATION - you just said that yourself! 😂

    It works on paper!

    So does Algebra - surprise, surprise, surprise 😂

    t is a syntax for performing calculations using a stack-based

    NOTATION

    There are no fucking parentheses - anywhere

    And I'm guessing you think there is no 1 anywhere in a+b, and there's no + anywhere in 1-2

    Order of operations is implicit

    Which you could write explicitly with Brackets. 2 3 + 4 x = (2+3)x4

    completely different from the one thing you insist is both universal

    No it isn't. 2 3 + 4 x gives the same answer as (2+3)x4, and 3 4 x 2 + gives the same answer as 2+3x4. Note that in the first example 2 3 + is effectively being bracketed, as otherwise you'd get a wrong answer by the order of operations rules

    Do you know anything that’s not in a textbook for children?

    Yep, everything in high school Maths textbooks 😂

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Distribution is "effectively" multiplication. Nothing you say, nothing you point to, could possibly change that, because they will always get the same answer, and if getting the right answer is all that makes two things the same, then shut the fuck up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Distribution is “effectively” multiplication

    No it isn't, it's Brackets. a(b+c)=(ab+ac) <== Brackets Now solve (ab+ac), or do you think that (8-5) is subtraction and not brackets? 😂 It's actually the reverse process to Factorising, whereas Multiplication is the reverse operation to Division - not even remotely the same thing.

    othing you say, nothing you point to, could possibly change that,

    says person ignoring Maths textbooks 😂

    because they will always get the same answer

    No they don't! 😂 That's why it's a Law

    1/a(b+c)=1/(ab+ac)

    1/ax(b+c)=(b+c)/a

    Oops! (b+c) went from being in the denominator to being in the numerator, leading to WRONG ANSWER 😂 Welcome to why we have The Distributive Law

    if getting the right answer is all that makes two things the same

    No it isn't, but that's the first thing which has to happen. See previous point where they aren't even the same answer, therefore one of them is wrong

    shut the fuck up

    says person still refusing to look in Maths textbooks 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    Syntax is notation is rules, as it suits your ability to be smug at people.

    How did I let you rope me into honestly trying to get through to you? I called all of this from a mile off, you did exactly what I said while insisting you weren't, and I'm still left desperately hoping some combination of words will work. It doesn't matter what I write here; you're just going to quote every sentence, respond "tExTbOoK!", and pick a sneering emoji.

    I never should've edited what the first reply said in full:

    Fuck off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago*

    How did I let you rope me into honestly trying to get through to you?

    Gaslighters can't gaslight Maths teachers about Maths. You should know that by now

    I called all of this from a mile off

    That you were going to ignore Maths textbooks? I called that too 😂

    you did exactly what I said

    Nope. You never said I was going to prove you wrong

    while insisting you weren’t

    I've been doing the same thing I always do - proving you wrong with Maths textbooks 😂

    respond “tExTbOoK!”

    The question is, why do you refuse to look in any?

    I never should’ve edited what the first reply said in full:

    You never should've commented at all gaslighter

    Fuck off.

    says person in an admission of defeat

  • source
  • parent