Strange that this way of assigning meaning to a string of mathematical symbols is a convention then, but not the other part that is mentioned in the same paragraph 🤔🤔🤔
And what, my dear, about a page saying “other rules may have been adopted” suggests anything others than that different rules may have been adopted?
You know by know that no-one but you agrees with your interpretations. You can’t find a single explicit agreement with them. Reposting the same pages that you are misinterpreting is very silly, isn’t it.
I haven’t deflected. I told you to go read up on the history of it and you would discover what was being talked about. Since you apparently don’t know how to use Google either, here’s a link for you
The contents of the book day nothing about the “rules” only about the symbols, so lining this book doesn’t answer the question.
In general, responding to a question with “you haven’t read enough” is, indeed, deflection, and is a sign you can’t answer. If you could, you would! Simple.
The contents of the book day nothing about the “rules” only about the symbols
says person proving they didn’t read it. Who woulda thought you might refuse to read something that would prove you wrong. 🙄
In general, responding to a question with “you haven’t read enough” is, indeed, deflection
says person revealing they don’t know what deflection means either 🙄
a sign you can’t answer
I can answer if you go ahead and book some online tutoring with me to cover the history behind the comment.
If you could, you would! Simple
It’s not my job to educate you dude, unless you book some online tutoring with me, in which case it is my job. I gave you a book which answers it, for free, in extreme detail, and you lied about what it even contains, cos you never even looked at it, simple.
Hey, you’re right, Cajori does talk about operator precedence.
Unfortunately, it talks about how the rules, especially for mixed division and multiplication, have changed over time. Supporting my point that these “rules” are not in fact rules of maths, but instead rules of mathematicians.
That is why Cajori includes them in a book about the history of how we write mathematics. No matter how you write multiplication and addition, they must always be commutative, associative relations which obey the distributive law; if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be multiplication and addition. However, you can write them down in different ways, by using different symbols for example. Using different symbols for multiplication changes what a sequence of mathematical symbols means, but it doesn’t change what multiplication is. Doing the operations described by a sequence of mathematical symbols in one order or another order may break one set of rules of precedence, but those are rules made by mathematicians not by the fundamental working of the universe.
How do I know this? Because Cajori says that, at the time he was writing, there was “no agreement” over the order in which to perform divisions and multiplications if both occur in an expression. So here’s a question for you: do you
agree with Cajori that at one time there was no agreement over which order to perform multiplications and divisions, or not?
If you do agree that there was no such agreement, do you then agree that, for there to be agreement now, such as there may be, that change must be through rules created by mathematicians, rather than by rules given to us from the universe itself? Because the universe certainly didn’t change in the meantime, did it?
If you don’t agree then that would rather expose your fetishisation of textbooks as hollow trolling, of course.
Strange that this way of assigning meaning to a string of mathematical symbols is a convention then, but not the other part that is mentioned in the same paragraph 🤔🤔🤔
And what, my dear, about a page saying “other rules may have been adopted” suggests anything others than that different rules may have been adopted?
You know by know that no-one but you agrees with your interpretations. You can’t find a single explicit agreement with them. Reposting the same pages that you are misinterpreting is very silly, isn’t it.
says person revealing they haven’t read about the history behind that comment 🙄
All the textbooks agree dude, which you would know if you had read more, but you’ve chosen to remain an ignorant gaslighter
With what?
says person who can’t post anything that agrees with their silly interpretation 🤣🤣🤣
answer the question, deflecter :)
I haven’t deflected. I told you to go read up on the history of it and you would discover what was being talked about. Since you apparently don’t know how to use Google either, here’s a link for you
The contents of the book day nothing about the “rules” only about the symbols, so lining this book doesn’t answer the question.
In general, responding to a question with “you haven’t read enough” is, indeed, deflection, and is a sign you can’t answer. If you could, you would! Simple.
says person proving they didn’t read it. Who woulda thought you might refuse to read something that would prove you wrong. 🙄
says person revealing they don’t know what deflection means either 🙄
I can answer if you go ahead and book some online tutoring with me to cover the history behind the comment.
It’s not my job to educate you dude, unless you book some online tutoring with me, in which case it is my job. I gave you a book which answers it, for free, in extreme detail, and you lied about what it even contains, cos you never even looked at it, simple.
Hey, you’re right, Cajori does talk about operator precedence.
Unfortunately, it talks about how the rules, especially for mixed division and multiplication, have changed over time. Supporting my point that these “rules” are not in fact rules of maths, but instead rules of mathematicians.
That is why Cajori includes them in a book about the history of how we write mathematics. No matter how you write multiplication and addition, they must always be commutative, associative relations which obey the distributive
law; if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be multiplication and addition. However, you can write them down in different ways, by using different symbols for example. Using different symbols for multiplication changes what a sequence of mathematical symbols means, but it doesn’t change what multiplication is. Doing the operations described by a sequence of mathematical symbols in one order or another order may break one set of rules of precedence, but those are rules made by mathematicians not by the fundamental working of the universe.How do I know this? Because Cajori says that, at the time he was writing, there was “no agreement” over the order in which to perform divisions and multiplications if both occur in an expression. So here’s a question for you: do you agree with Cajori that at one time there was no agreement over which order to perform multiplications and divisions, or not?
If you do agree that there was no such agreement, do you then agree that, for there to be agreement now, such as there may be, that change must be through rules created by mathematicians, rather than by rules given to us from the universe itself? Because the universe certainly didn’t change in the meantime, did it?
If you don’t agree then that would rather expose your fetishisation of textbooks as hollow trolling, of course.