that you or someone else
That’s me. Is this you saying “strongly asserting you could teach math anywhere in the US without any sort of math cert” or someone else? Because, in case you didn’t notice, definitely doesn’t say the same thing
please, pretend you have credentials none of us believe
No thanks. I never lie.
anywhere in the US
Nope. Never said that, hence why you’re unable to quote me saying that.
show me your source on that
says person who has shown no sources that it’s only Florida and was only because of remote learning. Here’s a 2-week old article for you, so you can stop quoting excuses from years ago
can tell you are neither in nor familiar with the current issues in education
Says person quoting an excuse given several years ago, and clearly hasn’t looked up who he’s talking to (spoiler alert: a Maths teacher)
that’s the legacy of remote learning
That was the excuse given several years ago. Latest figures (a few weeks ago, as I already said) show the U.S. has fallen even further behind the rest of the world post return to school, so the issue was never remote learning to begin with.
credentialing standards are set state by state. you know that, right?
Yep. And you know Florida isn’t the only state falling behind in Maths, right? Now go look and see how many states no longer require Maths teachers to have qualifications in Maths and you’ll see why
Or are you misconstruing “that math” for “all math”?
I wasn’t even commenting on that, hence why I quoted “remember FOIL?” and not the rest.
i have an idea, look up credentialing standards before you comment on them
says person who clearly didn’t. You know they’ve changed them recently, right?
I LOOKED IN THE TEXTBOOKS FOR YEARS. AS A STUDENT.
Apparently not carefully enough. Go look again. As I said there are plenty available online now.
I mean, go ahead and lie
I’m not lying. It’s there in the textbooks. There are many available for free online these days.
Memorizing proofs
No students are required to memorise proofs, only how to do proofs to begin with.
Some chapters had token word problems
They’re not token problems - learning how to do word problems is a central core of Maths. They’re thrown in often.
Science class math comes with sniff tests that math class math doesn’t
Not really. v=d/t, s=ut+½at², and similar equations are used often in teaching Maths (such as in non-linear graphs).
because following rules is what you do
That’s right. We teach that if you follow all the rules you will always get the correct answer. Now witness adults on social media arguing about the answer to an order of operations question because they’ve forgotten the rules but refuse to admit that’s even possible, and yet the rules are still there to be found in Maths textbooks now, same as they were then, still the same rules (despite some of them claiming the rules have been changed).
algebraic notation is artificial.
No it isn’t.
It’s manmade,
The notation is, the Maths isn’t.
like the English language.
It’s not at all like language, any language.
It’s a method of communicating ideas
No, it’s a method of calculating things, like rocket trajectories, etc. Got nothing to do with communication at all.
except it was taught as a series of rules and procedures that you were supposed to memorize how to do without understanding the goal
I can’t help it if you yourself had a bad teacher, but look in the textbooks and that isn’t how it’s taught at all.
there’s more of the country than florida
And there’s more of the country falling behind the rest of the world in Maths than just Florida. It was all over the news, again, just a few weeks ago.
we approach teaching math to a nation full of hormonal teenagers as if they all want to grow up to be mathematicians
No we don’t.
Starting in about the 7th grade they stop giving practical examples
No we don’t. Just check out some final exams to see plenty of them still included.
if you’d explained it to me like that when I was 12
Most teachers do, but some aren’t very good, especially in the U.S. where it’s not even required to have Maths qualifications to be a Maths teacher.
remember FOIL?
A lot of adults don’t, then proceed to argue about order of operations, having forgotten that Brackets have to be all expanded out before doing anything else at all.
We don’t learn that math because it’s practical for adult life
Yes we do. I use Maths every day, quite separate to the fact I teach it.
the proper way is to group it as 1+(-2)+3
No it isn’t.
you can do it in any order
You can do it in any order anyway
left to right 1-2+3=-1+3=2
addition first 1+3-2=4-2=2
subtraction first -2+1+3=-1+3=2
right to left 3-2+1=1+1=2
What I meant with ““rule”” is the meme questions pray on people not understanding/remembering what the actual rules are
And you showed that you were one of them. Every answer you got other than 4 was wrong, because you didn’t understand the rules. spoiler alert: doing it in different orders never means add brackets to it. Addition first for 10-1+1 is 10+1-1, not 10-(1+1). See previous textbook example
why “left to right” conventions exist
They exist because people like you make mistakes when you try to do it in a different order. Either learn how the rules work or stop spreading disinformation. Well, you should stop spreading disinformation regardless.
I fully agree that if it comes down to “left to right”
It never does
But I’ve just shown why that “rule” is a common part
No you didn’t. You showed you didn’t understand the rules. Doing addition first for 10-1+1 is 10+1-1, not 10-(1+1). It literally means add all positive numbers together first, which are +10 and +1, as per Maths textbooks…
Note in the above simplification of the coefficients we have 6-11+5-7+2=6+5+2-11-7=13-18=-5, and not, as you claim 6-(11+5)-(7+2)=6-16-9=-19
because it is so weird and quite esoteric
It’s a convention, not a rule, and as such can be completely ignored by those who understand the rules. See literal textbook example
Maandelykse Mathematische Liefbebbery, Purmerende (1754-69)
You know the Facebook post is in English and from 2025, right? 😂
Welcome to the 21st century
Welcome to it’s not a textbook (and it wasn’t about order of operations anyway).
We have this thing called the internet so people can share information without killing trees
We also have this thing called textbooks, that schools order so that Maths classes don’t have to be held in computer labs.
It’s the resource material for a college course
And the college doesn’t teach order of operations.
That’s like the definition of a text book
by someone who can’t back up their statements with actual textbooks.
One is a PhD teaching a college course on the subject
Yep, exactly what I said - a random person as far as order of operations is concerned, since he teaches Set Theory and not order of operations.
the other is Wolfram
Yeah, their programmers didn’t know The Distributive Law either.
I’m willing to bet their credentials beat “claims to be a high school math teacher” pretty soundly
Happy to take that bet. Guarantee you neither of them has studied order of operations since they were in high school.
This portion of the discussion wasn’t about order of operations
Yes it is. I said that order of operations dictates that you have to solve binary operators before unary operators, then you started trying to argue about unary operators.
it was about the number of inputs an operator (+, and - in this case) has
Yep, the ones with more inputs, binary operators, have to be solved first.
Try to keep up
Says person who’s forgotten why we were talking about it to begin with! 😂
At least your repeated use of the plural maths means you’re not anywhere near my kids.
Well that outs yourself as living in a country which has fallen behind the rest of the world in Maths, where high school teachers don’t even have to have Maths qualifications to teach Maths.
when those symbols are being used as a “sign of the quality” of the number it’s referring to
which is always. As usual, the comprehension issue is at your end.
not when it’s being used to indicate an operation like addition or subtraction
Yes it is 😂
Hopefully that clears it up
That you still have comprehension issues? I knew that already
This is ignoring the fact that a random screen shot could be anything
The name of the book is in the top left. Not very observant either.
For all I know you wrote that yourself
You don’t care how much you embarrass yourself do you, given the name of the book is in the top left and anyone can find and download it. 😂
because the first “+” isn’t an operator
Yes it is! 😂
It’s, as your own picture says, a sign of the quality of 2
and a sign of the quality of the 3 too. There are 2 of them, one for each Term, since it’s a 1:1 relationship.
I would love to know how you get to a sum or difference with only one input.
You don’t. Both need 2 Terms with signs. In this case +2 and +3.
2 is the first, and 3 is the second
Yep, corresponding to the 2 plus signs, +2 and +3. 1 unary operator, 1 Term, 2 of each.
Two inputs for addition
2 jumps on the number line, starting from 0, +2, then +3, ends up at +5 on the number line. This is how it’s taught in elementary school.
Did you get it this time?
The real question is did you?
Was that too fast?
No, you just forgot one of the plus signs in your counting, the one we usually omit by convention if at the start of the expression (whereas we never omit a minus sign if it’s at the start of the expression).
You can go back and read it again if you need to
I’m not the one who doesn’t know how unary operators work. Try it again, this time not leaving out the first plus sign.
Fine, operation then
Nope, not an operation either.
The fact that you think “!” is the same thing as brackets
I see you don’t know how grouping symbols work either.
Maybe you’re just being weirdly pedantic about operator vs operation
Grouping symbols are neither.
Which would be a strange hill to die on since the original topic was operations
You were the one who incorrectly brought grouping symbols into it, not me.
I could keep providing sources
You haven’t provided any yet! 😂
I still don’t have the time to screen shot some random crap with no supporting evidence
Glad you finally admitted you have no supporting evidence. Bye then! 😂
It is though. Here’s a link to buy a printed copy:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! They print it out when someone places an order! 😂
You keep mentioning textbooks but haven’t actually shown any that support you. I have
No you haven’t. You’ve shown 2 websites, both updated by random people.
I’ll trust the PhD teaching a university course on the subject
I already pointed out to you that they DON’T teach order of operations at University. It’s taught in high school. Dude on page you referred to was teaching Set theory, not order of operations.
over the nobody on the internet
Don’t know who you’re referring to. I’m a high school Maths teacher, hence the dozens of textbooks on the topic.
Talking about yourself in the third person is weird
Proves I’m not weird then doesn’t it.
Even your nonsense about a silent “+”
You call what’s in textbooks nonsense? That explains a lot! 😂
is really just leaving off the leading 0 in the equation 0+2
And yet the textbook says nothing of the kind. If I had 2+3, which is really +2+3 (see above textbook), do I, according to you, have to write 0+2+0+3? Enquiring minds want to know. And do I have to put another plus in front of the zero, as per the textbook, +0+2+0+3
Because addition is a binary operator
No it isn’t 😂
Only the ones that operate on two inputs.
Now you’re getting it. Multiply and divide take 2 inputs, add and subtract take 1.
Some examples of unary operators are factorial, absolute value, and trig functions.
Actually none of those are operators. The first 2 are grouping symbols (like brackets, exponents, and vinculums), the last is a function (it was right there in the name). The only unary operators are plus and minus.
I can’t keep trying to explain the same thing to you
You very nearly got it that time though! 😂
at least less wrong
Again, it’s not me who’s wrong.
No worries :-)
Actually, it is. Written by a PhD and used in a college course.
Yeah there’s an issue with them having forgotten the basic rules, since they don’t actually teach them (except in a remedial way). Why do you think I keep trying to bring you back to actual Maths textbooks?
May want to work on your own reading comprehension.
Nope. It’s still not a textbook. Sounds more like a higher education version of Wikipedia.
The facts disagree
With you, yes.
it doesn’t change the underlying issue that it’s defined by man.
The notation is, the rules aren’t.
In the absence of all your books (which you clearly don’t understand anyway based on our discussion of unary vs binary)
Says person who doesn’t understand the difference between unary and binary. Apparently EVERYTHING is binary according to you (and your website). 😂
order of operations only exists because we all agree to it
It exists whether we agree with it or not. Don’t obey it, get wrong answers.
What proof do you have that using a left to right rule is universally true?
From my understanding It’s an agreed convention that is followed
Read what I wrote again. I already said that left to right is a convention, and that Left Associativity is a rule. As long as you obey the rule - Left Associativity - you can follow whatever convention you want (but we teach students to do left to right, because they often make mistakes with signs when they try doing it in a different order, as have several people in this thread).
that implies we could have a right to left rule
You can have a right to left convention if the rule is Right Associativity.
It’s also true that not all cultures right in the same way
Yeah, I don’t know how they do Maths - if they do it the same as us or if they just flip everything back-to-front (or top to bottom - I guess they would). In either case all the rules on top stay the same once the direction is established (like I guess exponents would now be to the top left not the top right? but in any case the evaluation of an exponent would stay the same).
But here is an interesting quote from Florian Cajori in his book a history of mathematical notations
Yeah, he’s referring to the conventions - such as left to right - not the rule of Left Associativity, which all the conventions must obey. For a while Lennes was doing something different - because he didn’t understand Terms - and was disobeying Left Associativity, (which meant his rules were at odds with everyone else), but his rule died out within a generation of his death,. Absolutely all textbooks now obey Left Associativity, same as before Lennes came along.
Lastly here is an article that also highlights the issue
Not really. Just another person who has forgotten the rules.
“as it happens, the accepted convention says the second one is correct”
No it isn’t. The Distributive Law says the first is correct (amongst 4 other rules of Maths which also say the answer is only 1). The second way they did it disobeys The Distributive Law (and 4 other rules) and is absolutely wrong.
Says person who can’t debunk anything I said and is resorting to ad hominems.
If you read the article you’ll find the U.S. has been falling behind in English as well 😂
Says person resorting to making things up
Maths education is a profession of mine, not a hobby