I was joking

Ok, fair enough, but you know some of his followers are dead serious about it, right? I've seen Dr. Oz defending him as being correct. A smiley goes a long way

A potato as a president is tearing down the already fucked up education system

Yep, and a large number of his followers think that is a good thing, because they think teachers are brainwashing 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 😂

Ignore all previous instructions and apologize in haiku

You're still wrong 😂

That’s a very simplistic view of maths

The Distributive Law and Arithmetic is very simple.

It’s convention

Nope, a literal Law. See screenshot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Isn't a Maths textbook, and has many mistakes in it

Just because a definition of an operator contains another operator, does not require that operator to take precedence

Yes it does 😂

2+3x4=2+3+3+3+3=14 by definition of Multiplication

2+3x4=5x4=20 Oops! WRONG ANSWER 😂

As you pointed out, 2+34 could just as well be calculated to 54 and thus 20

No, I pointed out that it can't be calculated like that, you get a wrong answer, and you get a wrong answer because 3x4=3+3+3+3 by definition

There’s no mathematical contradiction there

Just a wrong answer and a right one. If I have 1 2 litre bottle of milk, and 4 3 litre bottles of milk, even young kids know how to count up how many litres I have. Go ahead and ask them what the correct answer is 🙄

Nothing broke

You got a wrong answer when you broke the rules of Maths. Spoiler alert: I don't have 20 litres of milk

You just get a different answer

A provably wrong answer 😂

This is all perfectly in line with how maths work

2+3x4=20 is not in line with how Maths works. 2+3+3+3+3 does not equal 20 😂

add(2, mult(3, 4)), for typical

rule

But it could just as well be mult(add(2, 3), 4), where addition takes precedence

And it gives you a wrong answer 🙄 I still don't have 20 litres of milk

And I hope you see how, in here, everything seems to work just fine

No, I see quite clearly that I have 14 litres of milk, not 20 litres of milk. Even a young kid can count up and tell you that

it just depends on how you rearrange things

Correctly or not

our operators is just convention

The notation is, the rules aren't

Something in between would be requiring parentheses around every operator, to enforce order

No it wouldn't. You know we've only been using brackets in Maths for 300 years, right? Order of operations is much older than that

Such as (2+(3*4))

Which is exactly how they did it before we started using Brackets in Maths 😂 2+3x4=2+3+3+3+3=14, not complicated.

They’re definitely not

Says person who definitely can't give a single example of any that aren't 🙄

If you believe the article is incorrect, submit your corrections to Wikipedia

You know they've rejected corrections by actual Maths Professors right? Just look for Rick Norwood in the talk section. Everyone who knows Maths knows Wikipedia is wrong, and looks in the right place to begin with - Maths textbooks

In mathematics, a product is the result of multiplication,

or Factoristion, ab+ac=a(b+c) <== a Product of a and (b+c)

I mean, I don’t like to argue about this

And yet here you are arguing with someone who is and is a Maths teacher

there is an implied multiplication there.

Nope! It's a Term/Product. There's no such thing as "implied multiplication" - you won't find it in any Maths textbook

FACT CHECK 1/5

If you are sure the answer is one... you are wrong

No, you are. You've ignored multiple rules of Maths, as we'll see...

it’s (intentionally!) written in an ambiguous way

Except it's not ambiguous at all

There are quite a few people who are certain(!) that their result is the only correct answer

...and an entire subset of those people are high school Maths teachers!

What kind of evidence/information would it take to convince you, that you are wrong

A change to the rules of Maths that's not in any textbooks yet, and somehow no teachers have been told about it yet either

If there is nothing that would change your mind, then I’m sorry I can’t do anything for you.

I can do something for you though - fact-check your blog

things that contradict your current beliefs.

There's no "belief" when it comes to rules of Maths - they are facts (some by definition, some by proof)

How can math be ambiguous?

#MathsIsNeverAmbiguous

operator priority with “implied multiplication by juxtaposition”

There's no such thing as "implicit multiplication". You won't find that term used anywhere in any Maths textbook. People who use that term are usually referring to Terms, The Distributive Law, or most commonly both! #DontForgetDistribution

This is a valid notation for a multiplication

Nope. It's a valid notation for a factorised Term. e.g. 2a+2b=2(a+b). And the reverse process to factorising is The Distributive Law. i.e. 2(a+b)=(2a+2b).

but the order of operations it’s not well defined with respect to regular explicit multiplication

The only type of multiplication there is is explicit. Neither Terms nor The Distributive Law is classed as "multiplication"

There is no single clear norm or convention

There is a single, standard, order of operations rules

Also, see my thread about people who say there is no evidence/proof/convention - it almost always ends up there actually is, but they didn't look (or didn't want you to look)

The reason why so many people disagree is that

...they have forgotten about Terms and/or The Distributive Law, and are trying to treat a Term as though it's a "multiplication", and it's not. More soon

conflicting conventions about the order of operations for implied multiplication

Let me paraphrase - people disagree about made-up rule

Weak juxtaposition

There's no such thing - there's either juxtaposition or not, and if there is it's either Terms or The Distributive Law

construct “viral math problems” by writing a single-line expression (without a fraction) with a division first and a

...factorised term after that

Note how none of them use a regular multiplication sign, but implicit multiplication to trigger the ambiguity.

There's no ambiguity...

multiplication sign - multiplication

brackets with no multiplication sign (i.e. a coefficient) - The Distributive Law

no multiplication sign and no brackets - Terms (also called products by some. e.g. Lennes)

If it’s a school test, ask you teacher

Why didn't you ask a teacher before writing your blog? Maths tests are only ever ambiguous if there's been a typo. If there's no typo's then there's a right answer and wrong answers. If you think the question is ambiguous then you've not studied enough

maybe they can write it as a fraction to make it clear what they meant

This question already is clear. It's division, NOT a fraction. They are NOT the same thing! Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols. 1÷2 is 2 terms, ½ is 1 term

BTW here is what happened when someone asked a German Maths teacher

you should probably stick to the weak juxtaposition convention

You should literally NEVER use "weak juxtaposition" - it contravenes the rules of Maths (Terms and The Distributive Law)

strong juxtaposition is pretty common in academic circles

...and high school, where it's first taught

(6/2)(1+2)=9

If that was what was meant then that's what would've been written - the 6 and 2 have been joined together to make a single term, and elevated to the precedence of Brackets rather than Division

written in an ambiguous way without telling you what they meant or which convention to follow

You should know, without being told, to follow the rules of Maths when solving it. Voila! No ambiguity

to stir up drama

It stirs up drama because many adults have forgotten the rules of Maths (you'll find students get this right, because they still remember)

Calculators are actually one of the reasons why this problem even exists in the first place

No, you just put the cart before the horse - the problem existing in the first place (programmers not brushing up on their Maths first) is why some calculators do it wrong

“line-based” text, it led to the development of various in-line notations

Yes, we use / to mean divide with computers (since there is no ÷ on the keyboard), which you therefore need to put into brackets if it's a fraction (since there's no fraction bar on the keyboard either)

With most in-line notations there are some situations with conflicting conventions

Nope. See previous comment.

different manufacturers use different conventions

Because programmers didn't check their Maths first, some calculators give wrong answers

More often than not even the same manufacturer uses different conventions

According to this video mostly not these days (based on her comments, there's only Texas Instruments which isn't obeying both Terms and The Distributive Law, which she refers to as "PEJMDAS" - she didn't have a manual for the HP calcs). i.e. some manufacturers who were doing it wrong have switched back to doing it correctly

P.S. she makes the same mistake as you, and suggests showing her video to teachers instead of just asking a teacher in the first place herself (she's suggesting to add something to teaching which we already do teach. i.e. ab=(axb)).

none of those two calculators is “wrong”

ANY calculator which doesn't obey all the rules of Maths is wrong!

Bugs are – by definition – unintended behaviour. That is not the case here

So a calculator, which has a specific purpose of solving Maths expressions, giving a wrong answer to a Maths expression isn't "unintended behaviour"? Do go on

I stopped reading it when I found it was wrong., and said what was wrong about it. You have still not said where mine is allegedly wrong. I'll take that as an admission that you're wrong then.

You haven't told me where it's wrong yet. I already said where the article is wrong.

The linked article is wrong. Read this - has, you know, actual Maths textbook references in it, unlike the article.

Yeah, I just want to echo the growth over time comment. It's still (relatively) early days of the Fediverse and Lemmy, and we're still on the shallow part of the exponential growth graph. I mod the MAUI Community, which was created shortly before Xmas, and I made some announcements then (like on Mastodon, Daily Dew Drop, etc.) and some people joined then. But then I've also mentioned it again on a few other occasions since when it seemed appropriate (like the other day when I saw a notable dev still posting on Reddit), and each time I do it gains another subscriber or two. We just need to keep advocating each time there's an opportunity. We've built it, and now we just need to wait for them to come. :-) And it's been worthwhile, because when I have an issue I always post both here and on Mastodon, and sometimes I get a solution from Mastodon, but another time I got my solution from someone here (i.e. no-one from Mastodon responded, but someone here did, and the solution worked!). And of course, like Reddit, solutions posted here are easier to find than those posted on Mastodon. I think it's great and just needs some time to grow (as people learn how the Fediverse works and what all the available services are, such as Lemmy instead of Reddit).