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 (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