this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
11 points (100.0% liked)
Science Memes
17736 readers
1908 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
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- 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
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
as per the textbooks 🙄
No they can't. The rules are universal
says someone about to prove that they don't understand it... 😂
Nope! With AS 3-2+1=+(3+1)-(2)=4-2=2
Yes, I expected you to not understand what AS meant 😂
It's only a convention, not a rule, as just proven
No it isn't. With SA 3-2+1=-(2)+(3+1)=-2+4=2
Yep, because order doesn't matter 🙄 AS and SA both give the same answer
Or any expression
You just violated the rules and changed the sign of the 1 from a + to a minus. 🙄 -(2+1)=-2-1, not -2+1. Welcome to how you got a wrong answer when you wrongly added brackets to it and mixed the different signs together
No it doesn't., as already proven. 3-2+1=+(3+1)-(2)=+4-2=2, same answer 🙄
Oh, it's you. I really want to have a good discussion about this, but it is not possible with your debate style. Once again, fragmenting your opponent's argument into a million partial statements and then responding to those is ineffective for several reasons:
You fail to understand the argument your opponent is making, and so you do not learn anything by engaging with it. You must first understand to learn.
By divorcing each partial statement from its surrounding context, you are likely to change its meaning, so you are no longer even responding to the meaning of what was said.
You are not making a point of your own, which means you are less likely to figure out your own mental model. You are simply stating facts, opinions, or misunderstandings as if they are self-evidently true, without knowing why you believe them to be true.
Expanding on point three, it's very easy to state two contradictory things without realizing it. For example, "No they can’t. The rules are universal" and "It’s only a convention, not a rule, as just proven".
Also expanding on point three, this also makes it hard for people to find the mistakes you're making and correct them, because mistakes in your mental model are only visible through the statements you choose to make, which are incoherent when taken together. For example, I can see that you don't fully understand what I mean by "operator precedence", but this is not obvious from your main point, because you have no main point, because you do not understand what mine is.
If your opponent also used this debate style, the argument takes hours and ends up entirely divorced from the initial meaning, completely destroying any hope of having the debate provide any actual value, ie. greater understanding.
Please do not take these as insults; it's a long shot to fundamentally change someone's perspective like this in one post, but I would love if you saw the beauty of discussion. To bring it back to your original comment:
Understanding the purpose and methods of debate allows you to understand why people know the brackets matter.
says person who deleted their previous post when I proved how wrong it was 😂
There's no debate - the rules are in Maths textbooks, which you want to pretend don't exist
You haven't got one. That's why you keep pretending Maths textbooks don't exist
says person who deleted one of their posts to remove the context. 😂 The context is the rules of Maths, in case you needed to be reminded 😂
Nope. I'm still talking about the rules of Maths 😂
Ok, so here you are admitting to comprehension problems. Which part did you not understand in addition and subtraction can be done in any order? 😂
You left out backing it up with textbook screenshots and worked examples 😂
There's no belief involved. It's easy enough to prove it yourself by doing the Maths 😂
And yet I never have. Why do you think that is? 😂
Which is correct
Which is also correct, and in no way contradicts the previous point, and I have no idea why you think it does! 😂 The first point is about the rules, and the second point is about conventions, which isn't even the same thing
That's because I'm not making any 😂
Says person who in their other post claimed "addition first" for -1+3+2 is -(1+3+2) = -6, and not +(3+2)-1=4 😂
Which you don't, given you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your points with 😂
I've been on-point the whole time, and you keep trying to deflect from how wrong your statements are 😂
Well, obviously not, given I just proved they were all wrong 😂
Except I've proven, repeatedly, that they don't, and so now you're trying to deflect from that (and deleted one of your posts to hide the evidence of how wrong you are) 😂
I'm falling for the troll here but I feel compelled to point out that you did NOT read the post I deleted lmao. I deleted it because I posted it before you "responded" to my points. Go check it out, I just restored it.
I should clarify that I haven't responded to your "points" because there is nothing worth responding to. Your arguments can all be debunked by reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations, so I didn't bother doing it myself.
To avoid any further temptation to respond I will be blocking you. Your absence from my future will be greatly appreciated. I feel that the deleted post is in itself a very good final word to this disappointment of a "conversation" even if it is not entirely accurate. Goodbye.
Just as well for you I've provided all the necessary evidence to prove them wrong then
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I DIDN'T leave, quite demonstrably.
So how come you won't then?
In other words, you have been proven wrong by them
Wikipedia can be comprehensively debunked by MATHS TEXTBOOKS - you know, those things you refuse to look at because they prove you are wrong 😂
So in other words, Wikipedia is all you had, and, having been disproven by Maths textbooks, you've got nothing
An admission of defeat then
Feel free to unblock me when you're ready to take your own advice
Just like all your other posts then
Don't let the door hit you on the way out