Do you teach classes like this? “That’s not a product, it’s a multiplication”

Yep! And if you read more than 2 sentences out of the textbook you would know why 🙄

those are the same thing.

Says person who only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter 🙄

Shouldn’t you, as a teacher, be explaining the difference, if you say there is one?

Yep, and it's right there in the textbook! 🙄

I’m starting to believe you don’t think they’re is one

So you think if a=2 and b=3, then...

1/ab=1/(2x3)=1/6

1/axb=1/2x3=3/2

Are somehow the same answer?? 😂 Which one is it then? 1/6 or 3/2?? 😂

You could argue that “product” refers to the result of the multiplication rather than the operation

Yep by definition!

there’s no sense in which the formula “a × b” does not refer to the result of multiplying a and b

There's no sense in which it does refer to the result you mean. The result of axb is ab. If a=2, b=3, axb=ab. 2x3=6, axb=2x3, ab=6

you don’t bother to even make such an argument

Says someone revealing that they haven't read a word I've said 🙄

you’re not actuality smart enough to understand the words you’re using

says someone who has just proven they haven't been reading them 🙄

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that you never provide any reference to your textbooks to back up these strange interpretations

Yes I did, and you only read 2 sentences out of it 😂

Where in your textbook does it say explicitly that ab is not a multiplication

Read on dude, read on, like I have been telling you the whole time. Oh wait, that would prove you were wrong. Oh, I wonder why you haven't read it... 🙄

It doesn’t, does it?

The page that you only read one sentence from 🙄

You’re keen to cite textbooks any time you can, but here you can’t

I already did and you only read 2 sentences out of it 🙄

You complain that people don’t read enough of the textbook, yet they read more than you ever refer to

says person who has repeatedly proven they've only read 2 sentences 🙄

In the other thread I said I wouldn’t continue unless you demonstrated your good faith by admitting to a simple verifiable fact that you got wrong

And I pointed out that in fact you got it wrong, and Mr. Hypocrite has failed to admit it 🙄

provide an actual textbook example where any of the disputed claims you make are explicitly made

Same one I already told you and you only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter

there should be some textbook somewhere which says that mathematics would not work with different orders of operations

It's easy enough to prove yourself, like I did. Go ahead and try it out and let me know how you go.

you’ve never found a textbook which says anything like this

No, I was able to prove it myself 🙄

only things like “mathematicians have agreed”

Because it was proven 🙄

where’s your textbook which says that “a × b is not a term”?

Same textbook that you only read 2 sentences from

Where is the textbook that says 5(17) requires distribution?

It tells you tight there on the same page that you must remove all brackets, 🙄 which you also haven't admitted to being wrong about yet, surprise, surprise, surprise

Where’s your textbook which says “ab is a product, not multiplication”?

Same one you only read 2 sentences from

there is a textbook reference saying “ab means the same as a × b”,

And you stopped reading at that point didn't even finish the page, never mind the chapter 🙄 Just started making false claims (contradicted by same textbook) that "means" means "equals", instead of realising they have explicitly not said equals 🙄

so your mental contortions are not more authoritative

Says person who made the mental contortion that "means" means "equals" instead of reading the rest of the page

your ability to interpret maths textbooks is poor

says person who only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter 🙄

we can have a productive discussion

when you decide to read more than 2 sentences 🙄

My prediction: you’ll present some implicit references

Wrong, as usual

try to argue they mean what you want

says person trying to argue that "means" means "equals" 🙄

I mean, it is pretty clear here that you do not really understand the purpose of notation,

says person who doesn't understand that there is only one possible answer to 2+3x4. Even kids who are still counting up know what it is

Notation is just a constructed language to convey a mathematical idea, it’s malleable

Yep, and the rules aren't. 2+3x4 can only ever equal 14. In Germany it's written 2+3.4, and it's still equal to 14, because the rules are universal

Nothing you referenced proved the convention as law

says person ignoring the textbook screenshots explaining why it's a Law 🙄

neither is there any mathematical basis for any proof

Yes there is. See textbook screenshots 🙄

it simply is nonsensical to “prove” a notation

It proves the rules 🙄

Have another source for this being convention https://www.themathdoctors.org/order-of-operations-why/

Read the comments and you'll find multiple people telling him he is wrong, with references 😂 His usual comeback is "well, that doesn't prove that it's taught everywhere", yeah only that they ALL say the same thing! 😂 And he even admitted at one point he couldn't find his rule in any Maths textbooks. 😂 I even tried to tell him myself, and he deleted my comment because I proved he was wrong 😂

or https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/884765/mathematical-proof-for-order-of-operations.

Is well-known to be overridden with people who do not know how to do order of operations 😂 On Mastodon I've seen people asking where is a better place to take Maths problems

If you want a book about this

I have plenty of Maths textbooks, which for some reason you refuse to look in

there’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronshtein_and_Semendyayev that is cited by wikipedia.

"comprehensive handbook" - so, yet again, not a Maths textbook 🙄

"first published in 1945 in Russia" - the order of operations rules are older than 1945 😂

"frequently used guide for scientists, engineers, and technical university students" - notably no mention of Mathematicians

I’m sure you could also find stuff about this in a set theory book

and you could find this in a high school Maths textbook

Though good luck understanding them without sufficient experience in high-level maths

You know teachers here are required to have a Masters in Maths right?? 😂

But why is it the correct answer?

Count up and find out, or use some Cuisenaire rods. This is how young kids learn to do it

In what context?

The context of Addition 🙄

What is the definition of addition?

1+1=2, then inductively proven for all subsequent numbers

How can you prove that 1+1=2 from fundamental axioms?

It's true by definition

This is harder to answer than you might think

Not hard at all. 1+1=2 by definition, then the rest of the numbers are proven inductively. You know there are several species of animals that also know how to count, right?

https://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/order5.pdf

I already said he was wrong about that. Quoting him saying it doesn't change that he's wrong about it

Do you think you’re above them?

You know we're talking about Year 7 Maths, right? 😂

Elementary school teaches you the fundamentals to your future education

but NOT The Distributive Law, which is taught in high school, in Algebra

I didn’t say you were wrong about math

You said "I don’t think you’re right", and followed it up with "Ill informed", to a Maths teacher.

I said you were wrong about English that is used in relation to math

And you were wrong about that too

Clearly this isn’t a strong suit of yours

What you mean is you clearly can't rebut any of it

However, stop acting like you know everything

I know everything about high school Maths - I teach it

you clearly don’t

There you go again calling a Maths teacher wrong about Maths 😂

You’re using some very strange logic to argue you’re right

You think Maths textbooks use very strange logic??

it doesn’t make any sense

read this then. Contains Maths textbooks

You’re very rude

What do you expect to happen when you call a Maths teacher wrong about Maths?

Ill informed

Maths teachers are ill informed about Maths?? 😂

Elementary means fundamental or basic

Which therefore contradicts your argument about it being part of Arithmetic, which is taught in elementary school, Algebra isn't

Those aren’t ‘rules of maths’,

Yes they are 😂

because math would work with other orders of operations as well.

There aren't any "other" orders of operations.

They are conventions

Nope, rules of Maths

Other cultures could have different conventions and it would work as well

They do have other conventions, they do not have other rules. The rules of Maths are universal.

the 5 next to the parentheses indicates multiplication

No, it indicates Distribution, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), 5(8-5)=(5x8+5x5).

so 5 literally cannot be a function if that’s the case

No, but it can be and is a coefficient of the Term 5(8-5)

Please learn some math

I'm a Maths teacher - how about you?

Quoting yourself as a source

I wasn't. I quoted Maths textbooks, and if you read further you'll find I also quoted historical Maths documents, as well as showed some proofs.

I didn't say the distributive property, I said The Distributive Law. The Distributive Law isn't ax(b+c)=ab+ac (2 terms), it's a(b+c)=(ab+ac) (1 term), but inaccuracies are to be expected, given that's a wikipedia article and not a Maths textbook.

I did read the answers, try doing that yourself

I see people explaining how it's not ambiguous. Other people continuing to insist it is ambiguous doesn't mean it is.

That just states that a*(b + c) = ab + ac

No, The Distributive Law states that a(b+c)=(ab+ac), and that you must expand before you simplify.

For some simple exanples,

Examples by people who simply don't remember all the rules of Maths. Did you read the answers?

I think weak juxtaposition is more easily taught

Except it breaks the rules which already are taught.

the PEMDAS ruleset

But they're not rules - it's a mnemonic to help you remember the actual order of operations rules.

Just let one die. Kill it, if you have to

Juxtaposition - in either case - isn't a rule to begin with (the 2 appropriate rules here are The Distributive Law and Terms), yet it refuses to die because of incorrect posts like this one (which fails to quote any Maths textbooks at all, which is because it's not in any textbooks, which is because it's wrong).

Because as a high school Maths teacher as soon as I saw the assertion that it was ambiguous I knew the article was wrong. From there I scanned to see if there were any Maths textbooks at any point, and there wasn't. Just another wrong article.