Comment on I dunno

• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  You are the brickest wall on lemmy. Either out of undiagnosed neurodivergence or some aggravating character gimmick, you pretend there is one true way to do a thing, except when you don’t. The commutative property means addition can happen in any order! But multiplication and distribution are totally different (despite getting the same goddamn answer due to the commutative property) and you will never ever shut the fuck up about splitting that hair.

  It’s dogma. You’ve internalized one set of rigid instructions, and declared them the rules of all mathematics, to the point you insist Reverse Polish Notation has parentheses. It fucking doesn’t. It literally cannot. Yet it’s an equally valid way to write and do math. It gets the same results, despite distribution being impossible. Last time I tried wedging this uneniable fact through any gap in your mortar, you smugly declared you’d found a way… and then explained multiplication, not distribution. Zero self-awareness. To this day, you are trying to be smug about a time you proudly contradicted yourself.

  I feel sorry for students who can’t just tell you:

  Go away, patience vampire.

  source

  • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    You are the brickest wall on lemmy

    Says person who hasn’t looked this up in a Maths textbook 😂

    Either out of undiagnosed neurodivergence or some aggravating character gimmick

    Neither, I’m a Maths teacher

    you pretend there is one true way to do a thing

    There’s no pretending involved, it’s in Maths textbooks

    The commutative property means addition can happen in any order

    Yep, and??

    But multiplication and distribution are totally different

    Nope! They can also be done in any order

    you will never ever shut the fuck up about splitting that hair

    Got no idea who you think you’re talking to, but I never said Multiplication and Division are different

    It’s dogma

    No, it’s the rules of Maths as found in Maths textbooks 😂

    You’ve internalized one set of rigid instructions

    ALL Mathematicians have, if you’re going to put it like that.

    declared them the rules of all mathematics

    As found in Maths textbooks

    to the point you insist Reverse Polish Notation has parentheses

    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

    It literally cannot

    …give correct answers without putting each paired operation into brackets

    Yet it’s an equally valid way to write and do math

    and obeys the EXACT SAME RULES 🙄

    It gets the same results

    because it obeys the same rules 🙄

    despite distribution being impossible

    Not impossible at all. Someone even wrote it in one of the other comments! 😂

    Last time I tried wedging this uneniable fact through any gap in your mortar

    you found there were no gaps 😂

    you smugly declared you’d found a way

    And as these very comments show, I’m not the only one to have done so! 😂

    then explained multiplication, not distribution

    No, Distribution.

    Zero self-awareness

    Well, you have zero awareness of what’s in Maths textbooks anyway 😂

    To this day, you are trying to be smug about a time you proudly contradicted yourself

    I have never contradicted myself. You calling Distribution “Multiplication” doesn’t make it Multiplication.

    I feel sorry for students who can’t just tell you

    My students do very well in their exams. How about you? 😂

    Go away, patience vampire

    Still can’t admit you were wrong then 🙄

    source

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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

      • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        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

        Image

        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

        • -> View More Comments