Comment

Comment on I dunno

<- View Parent

SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

you’re just using (AS) without realizing it

as per the textbooks 🙄

Conversations around operator precedence can cause real differences in how expressions are evaluated

No they can’t. The rules are universal

you might not underatand it yourself

says someone about to prove that they don’t understand it… 😂

With (AS), 3-2+1 = (3-2)+1 = 1+1 = 2

Nope! With AS 3-2+1=+(3+1)-(2)=4-2=2

This is what you would expect

Yes, I expected you to not understand what AS meant 😂

since we do generally agree to evaluate addition and subtraction with the same precedence left-to-right

It’s only a convention, not a rule, as just proven

With SA, the evaluation is the same

No it isn’t. With SA 3-2+1=-(2)+(3+1)=-2+4=2

you get the same answer

Yep, because order doesn’t matter 🙄 AS and SA both give the same answer

No issue there for this expression

Or any expression

But with AS, 3-2+1 = 3-(2+1)

You just violated the rules and changed the sign of the 1 from a + to a minus. 🙄 -(2+1)=-2-1, not -2+1. Welcome to how you got a wrong answer when you wrongly added brackets to it and mixed the different signs together

So evaluating addition with higher precedence rather than equal precedence yields a different answer

No it doesn’t., as already proven. 3-2+1=+(3+1)-(2)=+4-2=2, same answer 🙄

source

Sort:hotnew top

Feathercrown@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Oh, it’s you. I really want to have a good discussion about this, but it is not possible with your debate style. Once again, fragmenting your opponent’s argument into a million partial statements and then responding to those is ineffective for several reasons:

You fail to understand the argument your opponent is making, and so you do not learn anything by engaging with it. You must first understand to learn.

By divorcing each partial statement from its surrounding context, you are likely to change its meaning, so you are no longer even responding to the meaning of what was said.

You are not making a point of your own, which means you are less likely to figure out your own mental model. You are simply stating facts, opinions, or misunderstandings as if they are self-evidently true, without knowing why you believe them to be true.

Expanding on point three, it’s very easy to state two contradictory things without realizing it. For example, “No they can’t. The rules are universal” and “It’s only a convention, not a rule, as just proven”.

Also expanding on point three, this also makes it hard for people to find the mistakes you’re making and correct them, because mistakes in your mental model are only visible through the statements you choose to make, which are incoherent when taken together. For example, I can see that you don’t fully understand what I mean by “operator precedence”, but this is not obvious from your main point, because you have no main point, because you do not understand what mine is.

If your opponent also used this debate style, the argument takes hours and ends up entirely divorced from the initial meaning, completely destroying any hope of having the debate provide any actual value, ie. greater understanding.

Please do not take these as insults; it’s a long shot to fundamentally change someone’s perspective like this in one post, but I would love if you saw the beauty of discussion.
source
- SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  I really want to have a good discussion about this
  
  says person who deleted their previous post when I proved how wrong it was 😂
  
  it is not possible with your debate style
  
  There’s no debate - the rules are in Maths textbooks, which you want to pretend don’t exist
  
  You fail to understand the argument your opponent is making
  
  You haven’t got one. That’s why you keep pretending Maths textbooks don’t exist
  
  By divorcing each partial statement from its surrounding context
  
  says person who deleted one of their posts to remove the context. 😂 The context is the rules of Maths, in case you needed to be reminded 😂
  
  you are likely to change its meaning
  
  Nope. I’m still talking about the rules of Maths 😂
  
  You are not making a point of your own
  
  Ok, so here you are admitting to comprehension problems. Which part did you not understand in addition and subtraction can be done in any order? 😂
  
  You are simply stating facts, opinions, or misunderstandings as if they are self-evidently true
  
  You left out backing it up with textbook screenshots and worked examples 😂
  
  without knowing why you believe them to be true.
  
  There’s no belief involved. It’s easy enough to prove it yourself by doing the Maths 😂
  
  it’s very easy to state two contradictory things without realizing it
  
  And yet I never have. Why do you think that is? 😂
  
  “No they can’t. The rules are universal”
  
  Which is correct
  
  “It’s only a convention, not a rule, as just proven”
  
  Which is also correct, and in no way contradicts the previous point, and I have no idea why you think it does! 😂 The first point is about the rules, and the second point is about conventions, which isn’t even the same thing
  
  this also makes it hard for people to find the mistakes
  
  That’s because I’m not making any 😂
  
  I can see that you don’t fully understand what I mean by “operator precedence”
  
  Says person who in their other post claimed “addition first” for -1+3+2 is -(1+3+2) = -6, and not +(3+2)-1=4 😂
  
  If your opponent also used this debate style,
  
  Which you don’t, given you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your points with 😂
  
  ends up entirely divorced from the initial meaning
  
  I’ve been on-point the whole time, and you keep trying to deflect from how wrong your statements are 😂
  
  Image
  
  Please do not take these as insults
  
  Well, obviously not, given I just proved they were all wrong 😂
  
  allows you to understand why people know the brackets matter.
  
  Except I’ve proven, repeatedly, that they don’t, and so now you’re trying to deflect from that (and deleted one of your posts to hide the evidence of how wrong you are) 😂
  
  source
  - Feathercrown@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    I’m falling for the troll here but I feel compelled to point out that you did NOT read the post I deleted lmao. I deleted it because I posted it before you “responded” to my points. Go check it out, I just restored it. To avoid any further temptation to respond I will be blocking you. Your absence from my future will be greatly appreciated.
    
    Image
    
    source
    SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    I’m falling for the troll here
    
    Just as well for you I’ve provided all the necessary evidence to prove them wrong then
    
    I’m honestly disappointed that you just downvoted and left
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I DIDN’T leave, quite demonstrably.
    
    Challenging your beliefs with contrary ideas is the only way to improve them and understand the world in a more comprehensive and accurate way
    
    So how come you won’t then?
    
    I should clarify that I haven’t responded to your “points” because there is nothing worth responding to
    
    In other words, you have been proven wrong by them
    
    Your arguments can all be debunked by reading en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
    
    Wikipedia can be comprehensively debunked by MATHS TEXTBOOKS - you know, those things you refuse to look at because they prove you are wrong 😂
    
    I didn’t bother doing it myself.
    
    So in other words, Wikipedia is all you had, and, having been disproven by Maths textbooks, you’ve got nothing
    
    I will be blocking you
    
    An admission of defeat then
    
    I feel that the deleted post is in itself a very good final word to this disappointment of a “conversation”
    
    Feel free to unblock me when you’re ready to take your own advice
    
    if it is not entirely accurate
    
    Just like all your other posts then
    
    Goodbye
    
    Don’t let the door hit you on the way out
    
    source