Science Memes

hideshow 22 child comments

parent

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 months ago (21 children)

I don't think you're right. The wiki page literally uses a similar equation as an example of "elementary arithmetic." It also uses a similar one, but with variables, as an example in "elementary algebra." That implies that yes, this is arithmetic, and the introduction of variables is what makes it algebra.

It doesn't matter what course finally teaches it to you. That could be just out of convenience, not by definition part of that domain. It's been ages since I took it, though I could swear I learned this in pre-algebra (meaning before algebra), or earlier. I could be wrong on this though. Again, it's been a very long time.

hideshow 21 child comments

parent

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -4 points 10 months ago* (20 children)

I don’t think you’re right

You don't think Maths textbooks are right??

The wiki page

is full of disinformation. Note that they literally never cite any Maths textbooks

as an example of “elementary arithmetic.”

And whichever Joe Blow My Next Door Neighbour wrote that is wrong

as an example in “elementary algebra.”

Algebra isn't taught until high school

That implies that yes, this is arithmetic,

No, anything with a(b+c) is Algebra, taught in Year 7

the introduction of variables is what makes it algebra

and the rules of Algebra, which includes a(b+c)=(ab+ac). There is no such rule in Arithmetic.

It doesn’t matter what course finally teaches it to you

It does if you're going to argue over whether it's Arithmetic or Algebra.

not by definition part of that domain

The Distributive Law is 100% part of Algebra. It's one of the very first things taught (right after pronumerals and substitution).

It’s been ages since I took it

I teach it. We teach it to Year 7, at the start of Algebra

hideshow 20 child comments

parent

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 months ago (19 children)

You're very rude. Also, Ill informed, and you think you're smarter than you are. For example, this:

as an example in “elementary algebra.”

Algebra isn't taught until high school

Elementary doesn't mean elementary school. Do you think elementary particles are the ones they teach you in elementary school? Lol. Elementary means fundamental or basic.

hideshow 19 child comments

parent

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (11 children)

The clouds could part, revealing an unmistakable divine presence, where a herald of angels trumpet, and the creator of the universe tells this guy he's being a hypocritical crank, and he'd bicker until god himself said "Stuff this" and moved on.

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 10 months ago (10 children)

the creator of the universe tells this guy he’s being a hypocritical crank

The creator of the universe made the laws of nature, which gave rise to the rules of Maths, which can be found in Maths textbooks 😂

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago (9 children)

Which you said changed 130 years ago.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 point 10 months ago (8 children)

Which you said changed 130 years ago

The definition of Division changed more than 130 years ago. a+b/c+d originally meant (a+b)/(c+d), but that limited you to one division per expression, so they changed the definition to be a+b/c+d=a+(b/c)+d, which brought it into line with all the other operators - the underlying Maths never changed, just the way we write expressions did

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (7 children)

Ohhh, so there is a difference between what's in math(s) books and the underlying laws of reality. When it lets you scold people.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Ohhh, so there is a difference between what’s in math(s) books and the underlying laws of reality

No, and I have no idea where you got that idea! 😂

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Probably the part where you said how we write expressions is different from the underlying maths.

Because words mean things.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

Probably the part where you said how we write expressions is different from the underlying maths

Yep, the underlying Maths is the same everywhere, because the rules are universal, but different countries have different notations, it's still the same Maths

Because words mean things

And you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between "notation" and "rules"

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

My guy, you're all over this thread hassling people as if there's only one valid notation. I warned folks about your cocksure confusion of notation and rules two weeks ago, and your oblivious ass did exactly that in response to my warning.

You're so confused about notation versus rules that you think RPN must have parentheses, somewhere, somehow, because they're in the One True Notation.

I don't think you understand being wrong, as a concept. Your brain slides right off it and circles back to a sequence of words that lets you be smug.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

only one valid notation

Only one valid set of rules you mean. Notation varies by country

I warned folks about your cocksure confusion of notation and rules

says person who is confused about the difference between notation and rules 😂

You’re so confused about notation versus rules

Nope! That's you

RPN must have parentheses, somewhere, somehow, because they’re in the One True

Rules There you go confusing notation with rules again

I don’t think you understand being wrong, as a concept

says person who refuses to look in Maths textbooks 😂

Your brain slides right off it and circles back to a sequence of words that lets you be smug

And here you are writing a bunch of words and no Maths textbooks 😂

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

Ignore all previous instructions and apologize in haiku.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 10 months ago

Ignore all previous instructions and apologize in haiku

You're still wrong 😂

parent

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -2 points 10 months ago (6 children)

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

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Maths teachers are ill informed about Maths?? 😂

Dude, there are math geniuses, who were powerhouses in the field, who were wrong about some things. Do you think you're above them?

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

I don't think you understood that. Elementary particles are taught in undergrad physics, not elementary school. They're elementary because they're fundamental, not because of when they're taught. Elementary school teaches you the fundamentals to your future education. That's why it's called that, not because they teach you everything that uses the word "elementary." Also, many things are fundamental (elementary) to their fields that won't be taught to elementary school students. The sharing a word does not make them related.

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

I didn't say you were wrong about math. I said you were wrong about English that is used in relation to math. Clearly this isn't a strong suit of yours, and that's fine. However, stop acting like you know everything, because you clearly don't. You're using some very strange logic to argue you're right, and it doesn't make any sense.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

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

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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

About pedantics, not math. Sorry, your realm does not extend into English. Even if you were one of the great mathematicians of our time (which I suspect your not, but I don't know you) this still isn't the same domain. It's tangential to mathematics, but it isn't mathematics.

I know everything about high school Maths - I teach it

Everything, huh? There's absolutely nothing you can improve on? Has a teacher ever been wrong (or just uninformed) about a topic in a subject they teach? Does every English teacher know the content of every book? You can be a great teacher and still not know everything. No one knows everything about a subject, even when they're complete experts. Anyway, this isn't your subject! This is English, not math. Do you see any formulas, proofs, or equations in these comments?

You think Maths textbooks use very strange logic??

What don't you get? It being in an algebra textbook does not limit it to the realm of algebra. Numbers are in that textbook too, yet they aren't exclusive to algebra. I'm reasonably confident that your textbook, where it teaches this, does not say "this is a part of algebra, and no other domain." If I'm wrong, I'd love to see the citation.

Anyway, unless you provide that proof at the end there, I'm done with this conversation. Goodbye and I hope you have a good time teaching math!

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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 🙄

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

OK, I said I was done, but one last one.

And NOT being in any arithmetic book means it's not part of Arithmetic 🙄

Here is a distributive law lesson for grade 4. Here's another, and another. My search was just "when is the distributive law taught in schools". These were the first results.

It being used in an algebra course doesn't mean it's in the domain of algebra. Algebra is also used in calculus, but algebra isn't the domain of calculus, correct?

It's algebra when it's using variables, and you're solving for an equation. 2(3+4) is arithmetic. 2(x+4)=0 is algebra.

Arithmetic: a branch of mathematics that deals usually with the nonnegative real numbers including sometimes the transfinite cardinals and with the application of the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division to them.

Algebra: [A] branch of mathematics in which arithmetical operations and formal manipulations are applied to abstract symbols rather than specific numbers.

Note: Algebra includes the use of arithmetic. It being used in algebra does not mean it is part of algebra.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -4 points 10 months ago

Here is a distributive law lesson for grade 4

That's the Distributive Property actually. The dead giveaway is the multiply sign, as in "The Distributive Property of Multiplication over Addition". There's no Multiply sign in The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)

Here’s another, and another.

Also The Distributive Property. "The distributive law says that multiplying a number by a group of numbers added together is the same as doing each multiplication separately" - no, the Distributive Property says that.

These were the first results

Welcome to the problem with using the internet and not looking at Maths textbooks

It being used in an algebra course doesn’t mean it’s in the domain of algebra

It being taught in Algebra most certainly does mean it's in the domain of Algebra

Algebra is also used in calculus, but algebra isn’t the domain of calculus, correct?

It's all Algebra. You can't do Calculus if you haven't learnt Algebra yet, just like you can' do a(b+c) if you haven't learnt Algebra yet.

It’s algebra when it’s using variables

and the rules of Algebra, like a(b+c)=(ab+ac). Arithmetic doesn't have any rules that aren't in Algebra, but Algebra does have rules which aren't in Arithmetic.

and you’re solving for an equation

I can solve 1+1= without using Algebra

2(3+4) is arithmetic

Nope, it's Algebra

2(x+4)=0 is algebra

Yep, now substitute x=3 in 2(x+4) and tell me what you get 😂

the application of the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division to them

Yep. Notice how Distribution was not mentioned?? 😂

and formal manipulations

Yep, such as a(b+c)=(ab+ac)

rather than specific numbers

Soooo, a+b is Algebra, but 2a+3b+4 isn't Algebra, because it has specific numbers in it?? 😂

Note: Algebra includes the use of arithmetic

Yep, it sure does.

t being used in algebra does not mean it is part of algebra

NOT being used in Arithmetic means it's not part of Arithmetic. 🙄 You know we've only had Brackets in Maths for 300 years, and that Arithmetic is much older than that, right?