this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
11 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

17736 readers
1976 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 3 days ago (8 children)

You are the brickest wall on lemmy

Says person who hasn't looked this up in a Maths textbook 😂

Either out of undiagnosed neurodivergence or some aggravating character gimmick

Neither, I'm a Maths teacher

you pretend there is one true way to do a thing

There's no pretending involved, it's in Maths textbooks

The commutative property means addition can happen in any order

Yep, and??

But multiplication and distribution are totally different

Nope! They can also be done in any order

you will never ever shut the fuck up about splitting that hair

Got no idea who you think you're talking to, but I never said Multiplication and Division are different

It’s dogma

No, it's the rules of Maths as found in Maths textbooks 😂

You’ve internalized one set of rigid instructions

ALL Mathematicians have, if you're going to put it like that.

declared them the rules of all mathematics

As found in Maths textbooks

to the point you insist Reverse Polish Notation has parentheses

It adds them in the background, so that you don't have to - if it didn't it would return wrong answers - you not having to type them in doesn't mean they aren't getting added

It literally cannot

...give correct answers without putting each paired operation into brackets

Yet it’s an equally valid way to write and do math

and obeys the EXACT SAME RULES 🙄

It gets the same results

because it obeys the same rules 🙄

despite distribution being impossible

Not impossible at all. Someone even wrote it in one of the other comments! 😂

Last time I tried wedging this uneniable fact through any gap in your mortar

you found there were no gaps 😂

you smugly declared you’d found a way

And as these very comments show, I'm not the only one to have done so! 😂

then explained multiplication, not distribution

No, Distribution.

Zero self-awareness

Well, you have zero awareness of what's in Maths textbooks anyway 😂

To this day, you are trying to be smug about a time you proudly contradicted yourself

I have never contradicted myself. You calling Distribution "Multiplication" doesn't make it Multiplication.

I feel sorry for students who can’t just tell you

My students do very well in their exams. How about you? 😂

Go away, patience vampire

Still can't admit you were wrong then 🙄

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (7 children)

It adds them in the background, so that you don’t have to - if it didn’t it would return wrong answers - you not having to type them in doesn’t mean they aren’t getting added

I don't think you understand mathematics above the 7th-grade level you brag about teaching. No bona fides will excuse how you've acted; you have to be better. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog, and you act like a child cosplaying a teacher that students hate.

RPN does not have parentheses, any more than standard notation can have a stack. The concept does not exist. Yet both forms of equation are equally valid, but different - in the same way as peasant multiplication versus new-math multiplication. I'm not saying this for your sake because you're a broken robot. But since you're spamming everyone in this two-week-old thread, some of them are going to scroll through wondering 'is this schmuck for real?,' and they deserve to know exactly how small-minded and stubborn you are.

You're basically out here demanding that multiplication can only be done in the peasant method, so if someone's explaining it without a list of doubled numbers, they 'can't admit they're wrong.' So you're going to henpeck them one line at a time, ignoring the many ways they try to politely explain you're being a pedantic troll, and pounding books that reflect knowledge as if they define knowledge, until they all give up trying to spoon-feed you your own visible failure to teach anyone anything. Nobody's walking away from these interactions like 'oh thanks, good to know, that's perfectly clear now.' It's wall-to-wall 'I don't think you're as smart as you think you are' and 'you're really missing the point' and 'if it always gets the same answer then there's no meaningful difference.'

Yet tour dogmatism is so blatant that you're assigning Buddha nature to parentheses. Your philosophy cannot comprehend a math notation where you're even merely overreaching, let alone mistaken - so parentheses flit into being, somewhere in a stack operation between two numbers at a time. 1 2 + 3 * is not an equation with parentheses. Order of operations is baked into the order of operands. The first time I explained this to you, you had never heard of it. Yet you immediately asserted you'd found something missed by all all other people, sites, and indeed ~~holy texts~~ maths books.

You are a crank. Trying to 'no u' about your absence of self-awareness does not work, because you didn't predict me showing up to harass people with grade-school math while not listening. What you're doing is troll behavior. If this is how you teach children, it's enforced learning by rote, and their understanding of even basic mathematics is permanently hobbled by your smile-and-repeat-yourself rhetorical style.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 2 days ago (6 children)

I don’t think you understand mathematics above the 7th-grade level you brag about teaching

I don't think you understand any of it, not even Year 7

No bona fides will excuse how you’ve acted; you have to be better

says person who refuses to look in Maths textbooks

RPN does not have parentheses

in the foreground. In the background it does or it would give wrong answers. You understand that apps can do things that you don't see, right??

but different

Only the notation is different, the rules are the same

they deserve to know exactly how small-minded and stubborn you are

says the person who refuses to look in Maths textbooks 😂

as if they define knowledge

Textbooks do indeed define the notation and rules. 1+1=2 is defined as the notation to use to show that I had 1 thing and now I have 2 things

your own visible failure to teach anyone anything

says person ignoring all the people who actually did learn from me. That would be the people who are open to being wrong about how they thought it was done

Nobody’s walking away from these interactions like ‘oh thanks, good to know, that’s perfectly clear now.’

Yes they are! 😂

you’re assigning Buddha nature to parentheses

No, just literal textbook definition, which you refuse to look at 😂

1 2 + 3 * is not an equation with parentheses

So the app adds them in the background. Do you think apps don't know how many "a" you're talking about if you don't write 1a? Guess what, it knows in the background that a=1a, and that the 1 in 1-2-3 is +1, etc. Not typing them in doesn't mean they aren't being added

The first time I explained this to you, you had never heard of it.

yet again you seem to have me confused with someone else. I have no idea what you're talking about

You are a

Maths teacher

Trying to ‘no u’ about your absence of self-awareness does not work

says person who refuses to look in Maths textbooks

because you didn’t predict me

gaslighters gonna gaslight - there's nothing unpredictable about that

What you’re doing is

teaching the rules of Maths

If this is how you teach children, it’s enforced learning by rote

No it isn't, because they, having seen it also in the textbook, understand how it works

their understanding of even basic mathematics is permanently

improved, because they don't sit there going "Nah nah nah, nah nah nah, I'm not listening and not looking in the textbook!" 😂

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

So the app adds them in the background.
You understand that apps can do things that you don’t see, right??

...

You are functionally illiterate.

RPN is not an "app." RPN is a NOTATION. That's what the N is. It is a completely different way of doing math! It works on paper! You troll! It is a syntax for performing calculations using a stack-based method. There are no fucking parentheses - anywhere. It has no need for that concept. Operations use the top values on the stack. Order of operations is implicit in the order of operands, and completely different from the one thing you insist is both universal, and mutable, and a notation, and the rules, and whatever else lets you never shut the fuck up.

Do you know anything that's not in a textbook for children?

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You are functionally illiterate

says person who doesn't understand how apps work

RPN is not an “app.”

What do you think is behind the RPN calculators? A person?? 😂

RPN is a NOTATION

Yep, so is ALGEBRA 😂 The rules are independent of both

That’s what the N is

Yep, notation, not rules

It is a completely different way of doing math!

Nope! It's only a different NOTATION - you just said that yourself! 😂

It works on paper!

So does Algebra - surprise, surprise, surprise 😂

t is a syntax for performing calculations using a stack-based

NOTATION

There are no fucking parentheses - anywhere

And I'm guessing you think there is no 1 anywhere in a+b, and there's no + anywhere in 1-2

Order of operations is implicit

Which you could write explicitly with Brackets. 2 3 + 4 x = (2+3)x4

completely different from the one thing you insist is both universal

No it isn't. 2 3 + 4 x gives the same answer as (2+3)x4, and 3 4 x 2 + gives the same answer as 2+3x4. Note that in the first example 2 3 + is effectively being bracketed, as otherwise you'd get a wrong answer by the order of operations rules

Do you know anything that’s not in a textbook for children?

Yep, everything in high school Maths textbooks 😂

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Distribution is "effectively" multiplication. Nothing you say, nothing you point to, could possibly change that, because they will always get the same answer, and if getting the right answer is all that makes two things the same, then shut the fuck up.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Distribution is “effectively” multiplication

No it isn't, it's Brackets. a(b+c)=(ab+ac) <== Brackets Now solve (ab+ac), or do you think that (8-5) is subtraction and not brackets? 😂 It's actually the reverse process to Factorising, whereas Multiplication is the reverse operation to Division - not even remotely the same thing.

othing you say, nothing you point to, could possibly change that,

says person ignoring Maths textbooks 😂

because they will always get the same answer

No they don't! 😂 That's why it's a Law

1/a(b+c)=1/(ab+ac)

1/ax(b+c)=(b+c)/a

Oops! (b+c) went from being in the denominator to being in the numerator, leading to WRONG ANSWER 😂 Welcome to why we have The Distributive Law

if getting the right answer is all that makes two things the same

No it isn't, but that's the first thing which has to happen. See previous point where they aren't even the same answer, therefore one of them is wrong

shut the fuck up

says person still refusing to look in Maths textbooks 🙄

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Syntax is notation is rules, as it suits your ability to be smug at people.

How did I let you rope me into honestly trying to get through to you? I called all of this from a mile off, you did exactly what I said while insisting you weren't, and I'm still left desperately hoping some combination of words will work. It doesn't matter what I write here; you're just going to quote every sentence, respond "tExTbOoK!", and pick a sneering emoji.

I never should've edited what the first reply said in full:

Fuck off.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

How did I let you rope me into honestly trying to get through to you?

Gaslighters can't gaslight Maths teachers about Maths. You should know that by now

I called all of this from a mile off

That you were going to ignore Maths textbooks? I called that too 😂

you did exactly what I said

Nope. You never said I was going to prove you wrong

while insisting you weren’t

I've been doing the same thing I always do - proving you wrong with Maths textbooks 😂

respond “tExTbOoK!”

The question is, why do you refuse to look in any?

I never should’ve edited what the first reply said in full:

You never should've commented at all gaslighter

Fuck off.

says person in an admission of defeat

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)