Yes it does
Says person who can't cite a single example of it depending on the language 🙄
Sorry, your realm does not extend into English
Sorry, it most definitely does when it comes to how English is used in Maths
It’s tangential to mathematics, but it isn’t mathematics
The way we say Mathematical things is 100% Maths
There’s absolutely nothing you can improve on?
I can improve some badly written textbooks. Probably every Maths teacher can.
Has a teacher ever been wrong (or just uninformed) about a topic in a subject they teach?
Yes, ones who haven't looked in the textbook which seems to be the case with a lot of unqualified U.S. Maths teachers
Does every English teacher know the content of every book?
Probably the content of every book they teach 🙄
No one knows everything about a subject
Teachers do. It comes from teaching the same thing year after year after year
Anyway, this isn’t your subject!
Yes it is! 😂
This is English, not math
It's Mathematical English
Do you see any formulas, proofs, or equations in these comments?
Do you see words in Maths textbooks? And the definitions of them? 🙄
What don’t you get?
Why you keep insisting that Maths textbooks are wrong
It being in an algebra textbook does not limit it to the realm of algebra
And NOT being in any arithmetic book means it's not part of Arithmetic 🙄
Numbers are in that textbook too
Yep, both Arithmetic and Algebra, as opposed to a(b+c) which is only in Algebra books.
If I’m wrong, I’d love to see the citation
Says person who can't cite any Arithmetic books it's in 🙄
Anyway, unless you provide that proof at the end there
Already gave it in the previous post... which you didn't look at 🙄
You’re not listening to me
Says person refusing to look in Maths textbooks 🙄
it would have to explain to people “how do you use a keyboard”
No it wouldn't. You just link to resources about pre-requisite knowledge.
and everything from there upwards
Nope. Exact same thing applies to all pre-requisite knowledge.
For 99% of people almost all that is about as understandable as Greek
Now scroll down to the pre-requisite knowledge which has links to things explaining ALL of that.
how many people out there in the whole World (non-IT people as illustrated in the actual article linked by the OP) do you think know what the hell is “Visual Studio”, “.Net”, “Multi-platform Application User Interface”, “template”, “C#”, “XAML”, “binding” (in this context)
Exact same number as there is people capable of clicking on the provided links about them in the pre-requisite knowledge section.
which is maybe level 4 and they’ll be totally lost,
...until they read the links in the pre-requisite knowledge, and then they will understand all of it.
I think you’re so way beyond the average person in your expertise in this domain
says person who didn't even scroll past the introductory paragraph! 😂 You think people try to learn things by reading only the introductory paragraph?? 😂
you don’t even begin to suspect just how little of our domain the average person knows compared to an mere programmer
And yet, weirdly, if you keep reading you'll find it caters to people who know nothing about it 😂
AFAIK, this is correct to the point that I have understanding of. I’m not a mathematician
I'm a Maths teacher/tutor. The actual rules are Terms and The Distributive Law. There is no such thing as "implicit multiplication" (which is usually people lumping the 2 separate rules together as one and ending up with wrong answers).
Either ‐(n²) or (-n)². Order of operations shouldn’t be some sort of gotcha to trick people into misinterpreting you
It isn't. With ‐(n²), n² is already a single term, so the brackets aren't needed.
This is why every calculator should be a RPN calculator
No, this is why programmers should (re)learn the order of operations rules before writing a calculator.
Those math questions that rely on purposeful ambiguity in order to drive engagement
#MathsIsNeverAmbiguous The engagement is driven by people not remembering the rules of Maths. #DontForgetDistribution
A computer will convert 2(4) to 2 x 4
Only if that's what the programmer has programmed it to do, which is unfortunately most programmers. The correct conversion is 2(4)=(2x4).
in the 90s that if you had a fancy calculator with parentheses, you could fool it because it didn’t know about implicit association. Your calculator doesn’t know the difference between 2 x (2+2) and 2(2+2), but mathematicians do
Actually it's only in the 90's that some calculators started getting it wrong - prior to that they all gave correct answers.
P.S. if you DID want to indicate "weak juxtaposition", then you just put a multiplication symbol, and then yes it would be done as "M" in BEDMAS, because it's no longer the coefficient of a bracketed term (to be solved as part of "B"), but a separate term.
6/2(1+2)=6/(2+4)=6/6=1
6/2x(1+2)=6/2x3=3x3=9
could we not have some international body just make a decision one way or the other
There's no decision to be made. The correct rules are already taught in literally every Year 7-8 Maths textbook.
What do you think the "B" step in BEDMAS is for?? 😂
Distribute the coefficient over the terms inside the brackets
Says someone who can't tell the difference between Distributing, 2(1+3)=(2+6), and Multiplication, 2x(1+3)=2x4, 1/(2+6)=(1/8), 1/2x4=2