No, but I found Waldo.
No, but I found Waldo.
“Found my new Tinder bio”
– Allen Ginsburg
It would certainly appear so.
I mean… They’re not fucking wrong.
Maybe, but as I always say, today’s “crazy conspiracy theory” is tomorrow’s news.
Only if you’re inclined to believe the conspiracy theory first.
Doesn’t mean plenty of them don’t know or care that he’s trying to put microchips in people’s brains.
What an interesting error to point out in support of pemdas.
Clearly the formatting of a paragraph of text in a textbook full of clearly and unambiguously written formulas discussing the very order of operations itself compared to the formatting of an actual formula diagram is going to be less clear. But here you’ve chosen to point to a discussion of why the order is irrelevant in the case under question.
Your example is the conclusion of a review of mathematics.
First we shall review some mathematics.
…
The actual order of differentiation is immaterial:
The fact that the example formula is written sloppy is irrelevant, because at no point is this going to be an actual formula meant to be solved, it’s merely an illustration of why, in this case, the order of a particular operation is “immaterial”.
Even if ∂^2f/∂y∂x is clearly written to mean ∂^2f/(∂y∂x), it doesn’t matter because “∂2f/∂x∂y=∂2f/∂y∂x”. So long as you’re consistently applying pemdas, you’re going to get the same answer whether you derive x first or y.
However, when it’s time to discuss the actual formulas and equations being taught in the example text, clearly and unambiguously written formulas are illustrated as though copied from Ann illustration on a whiteboard instead of inserted into paragraphs that might have simply been transcribed from a lecture. Which, somewhat coincidentally, is exactly what your citation is.
I don’t know why you’re getting lost on the pedantry of defining “grade school”, when I was clearly discussing the fact that you only see this kind of sloppy formula construction in arithmetic textbooks where students are learning the basics of how to perform the calculations. Once you get into applied mathematics and specialized fields that use actual mathematics, like engineering, chemistry and physics, you stop seeing this style of formula construction because the ambiguity of the terms leads directly to errors of interpretation.
12 is a grade. I took algebra in the 7th grade.
You’ll regularly see textbooks
That’s what I said.
It’s BE(D=M)(A=S). Different places have slightly different acronyms - B for bracket vs P for parenthesis, for example.
But, since your rule has the D&M as well as the A&S in brackets does that mean your rule means you have to do D&M as well as the A&S in the formula before you do the exponents that are not in brackets?
But seriously. Only grade school arithmetic textbooks have formulas written in this ambiguous manner. Real mathematicians write their formulas clearly so that there isn’t any ambiguity.
Right wing has to shout the loudest. When your ideas don’t have merit you must resort to intellectual dishonesty. Unfortunately, this tactic works best on the undereducated, which includes the vast majority of American voters. Why do you think our education system is so terrible at every level? Why do you think they fight tooth and nail against student loan forgiveness? Why do you think school lunch debt even exists?
What kind of friend wouldn’t allow ear licking?
What an incredibly hot take. Like how is asking about a place to go where you’ll find memes that are more enjoyable to you dictating anything?
Ah yes! Herbs and spices, the original chemicals and preservatives.
Same shit different target
But not really. It’s just more of the same old Othering. It’s a tale as old as time, and I’m genuinely tired of it.
You’ve had plenty of time to elaborate on your claims of the “rampant success of workers unions” and your answer is “Google it”?
No. This is unacceptable. You tell me what you believe is evidence of the “rampant success of workers unions” or concede that there hasn’t been anything approaching "rampant success of workers unions"in quite some time.
Savor the Federation!
But if you’re American it was 1937.
Right. So, 86 years ago? How does this explain the rampant success of workers unions?
No, but it is raising some alarm bells.