this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
722 points (91.1% liked)

Science Memes

17834 readers
2114 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
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The P in PEMDAS means to solve everything within parentheses first; there is no "distribution" step or rule that says multiplying without a visible operator other than parentheses comes first. So yes, 36 is valid here. It's mostly because PEMDAS never shows up in the same context as this sort of multiplication or large fractions

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The P in PEMDAS means to solve everything within parentheses first

and without a(b+c)=(ab+ac), now solve (ab+ac)

there is no “distribution” step or rule

It's a LAW of Maths actually, The Distributive Law.

that says multiplying without a visible operator

It's not "Multiplying", it's Distributing, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)

So yes, 36 is valid here

No it isn't. To get 36 you have disobeyed The Distributive Law, thus it is a wrong answer

It’s mostly because

people like you try to gaslight others that there's no such thing as The Distributive Law

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Are you under the impression that atomizing your opponents statements and making a comment about each part individually without addressing the actual point (how those facts fit together) is a good debate tactic? Because it seems like all you've done is confuse yourself about what I was saying and make arguments that don't address it. Never mind that some of those micro-rebuttals aren't even correct.

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

addressing the actual point (how those facts fit together)

I did address the actual point - see Maths textbooks

all you’ve done is confuse yourself

I'm not confused at all. I'm the one who knows the difference between Distribution and Multiplication.

what I was saying

You lied about there being no such thing as "the Distribution step" (Brackets), proven wrong by the textbooks

make arguments that don’t address it.

Textbooks talking about The Distributive Law totally addresses your lie that no such step exists.

Never mind that some of those micro-rebuttals aren’t even correct

You think Maths textbooks aren't correct?? 😂

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I have said why this style of debate is bad in greater detail here: https://lemmy.world/post/39377635/21030374

But to make a pointless effort to address your actual point, yes distribution exists, no it is not a step in PE(MD)(AS). Again, you have not understood my point because you categorically fail to engage with any argument. I don't think you even understand what it means to do so. I will not respond further to either thread.

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

I have said why this style of debate is bad in greater detail here: https://lemmy.world/post/39377635/21030374

Which I debunked here

no it is not a step in PE(MD)(AS)

So... you're saying the "P" step in PEMDAS isn't a step in PEMDAS?? This is hilarious given you were just talking about contradictions 😂

Again, you have not understood my point

Maybe because saying the "P" step in PEMDAS isn't a step in PEMDAS makes no sense at all 😂

you categorically fail to engage with any argument.

No, I comprehensively debunked all of your points and deflections. 😂

I don’t think you even understand what it means to do so

says person who keeps avoiding the textbook screenshots and worked examples proving them wrong

I will not respond further to either thread

Yay! Don't let the door hit you on the way out 😂

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Parentheses means evaluating the things inside the parentheses you nimrod

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 1 week ago

Parentheses means evaluating the things inside the parentheses you nimrod

Only if you're still in Elementary school. How old are you anyway? Here's a high school Algebra book, you know, after students have been taught The Distributive Law...