• Primarily0617@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    if you’re going via prescriptivism, then you’re wrong, because there are plenty of authoritative sources following the left hand model

    if you’re going via descriptivism, then you’re wrong, because this thread exists

    • Lopen's Left Arm@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      No, the fact that a good many people are incorrect about how math works does not entail that math is an open question. It’s not, math has actual rules to its equations and an unambiguous right answer. In this case, that answer is 16.

      • Primarily0617@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        math has actual rules to its equations and an unambiguous right answer

        you know you could’ve just started this by admitting you’ve never touched the subject at a higher level than high school and saved us all this bother

        • Lopen's Left Arm@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m well familiar with math and the rules by which it works. Those who persist in arguing the case here could save the rest of us the bother by admitting they were stumped by a simple gotcha equation and are embarrassed, rather than wasting everyone’s time by insisting that math is nothing but a lawless, rules-free wasteland where the answer to an equation depends on your feelings at the time.

          • Primarily0617@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I’m well familiar with math and the rules by which it works

            i know you won’t realise this because you never got past basic calculus, but this is a very funny statement to anybody that did

            they know all the “math rules” guys. which ones? ALL of them

            but okay these rules: where do they come from, then?

            • Lopen's Left Arm@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Fortunately, the rules necessary to resolve the equation in this post are extremely elementary, so none of what you’re referencing has any bearing whatever.

              There are exactly three things to consider in here to determine priority: parentheses, multiplication/division, and addition. The addition happens first due to the parentheses, and the remaining is evaluated left-to-right. The only correct answer here is 16.

              All your deflection from your embarrassment at misreading a simple equation doesn’t detract from this.

              • Primarily0617@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                Fortunately, the rules necessary to resolve the equation in this post are extremely elementary, so none of what you’re referencing has any bearing whatever.

                this would be like trying to tell a chemical engineer they didn’t know what they were doing based on your understanding of the atom as a ball of protons with electrons wooshing round it like they were moons

                very cute

                unfortunately, if you give the expression 1 / 2x to anybody who knows what they’re doing they’ll interpret it as 1 / (2x) because it would be absurd not to

                for reference, that’s why the calculator works like this. because it’s a tool designed primarily for people who actually know what they’re doing with numbers, so it works how they expect it to work

                • Lopen's Left Arm@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  And there you’ve proven exactly what I’ve been saying all along. 2x works the way it does because there’s a variable involved, and natural reading of that treats it as a single entity. There are no variables in the equation in the post, there are only definite numbers, parentheses, and simple mathematical operations. 8/2(2+2) is nothing more than 8/2×(2+2). There is nothing special about 2(…, this is not the equivalent of 2x.

                  • Primarily0617@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    a natural reading of 2(2+2) treats it as the same

                    you’re straight up just spouting contradictory nonsense now because you’ve realised your stance doesn’t make any sense, and i am very much here for it

                  • 2x works the way it does because there’s a variable involved, and natural reading of that treats it as a single entity

                    Just like 2(2+2) is also a single Term.

                    no variables in the equation in the post, there are only definite numbers

                    Pronumerals literally stand in for numerals, and work exactly the same way. There is nothing special about choosing a pronumeral to represent a numeral.

                    8/2(2+2) is nothing more than 8/2×(2+2).

                    They’re completely different actually. 2(2+2) is a single term in the denominator, (2+2) - which you separated from the 2 with an x - is a now 3rd term which is now in the numerator, having been separated from the 2 which is in the denominator.

                    There is nothing special about 2(…, this is not the equivalent of 2x

                    So what’s it equal to when x=2+2?