Primarily0617

😘

you’re boring now ;(

try again

the good calculator is the one showing you adverts

~ local galaxy brain

ah yes it’s the computing power that’s at issue here

a natural reading of 2(2+2) treats it as the same

you’re straight up just spouting contradictory nonsense now because you’ve realised your stance doesn’t make any sense, and i am very much here for it

Fortunately, the rules necessary to resolve the equation in this post are extremely elementary, so none of what you’re referencing has any bearing whatever.

this would be like trying to tell a chemical engineer they didn’t know what they were doing based on your understanding of the atom as a ball of protons with electrons wooshing round it like they were moons

very cute

unfortunately, if you give the expression 1 / 2x to anybody who knows what they’re doing they’ll interpret it as 1 / (2x) because it would be absurd not to

for reference, that’s why the calculator works like this. because it’s a tool designed primarily for people who actually know what they’re doing with numbers, so it works how they expect it to work

I’m well familiar with math and the rules by which it works

i know you won’t realise this because you never got past basic calculus, but this is a very funny statement to anybody that did

they know all the “math rules” guys. which ones? ALL of them

but okay these rules: where do they come from, then?

math has actual rules to its equations and an unambiguous right answer

you know you could’ve just started this by admitting you’ve never touched the subject at a higher level than high school and saved us all this bother

if you’re going via prescriptivism, then you’re wrong, because there are plenty of authoritative sources following the left hand model

if you’re going via descriptivism, then you’re wrong, because this thread exists

but which axioms you decide are in use is an arbitrary choice

And in the “actual” order of operations, if we want to pretend one exists, 2( binds more tightly than ÷

if you’re going via prescriptivism, then you’re wrong, because there are plenty of authoritative sources following the left hand model

if you’re going via descriptivism, then you’re wrong, because this thread exists

math is literally the only subject that has rules set in stone

go past past high school and this isn’t remotely true

there are areas of study where 1+1=1

You’re taking something you learned when you were like 9 years old and assuming it’s correct in every situation forever.

Unfortunately this isn’t the case and you’re incorrect.

also, even if it weren’t, they’re a HEATHEN

it’s practically in the job description to make you uncomfortable

if you open the definition of “intelligence” that far then it kind of ceases to be a useful descriptor

for most people the baseline of “intelligence” is at least human comparable

the precise line you draw the distinction between “true” intelligence and not is one thing, but wherever you happen to draw it, chatgpt isn’t really close

i think that might be a strawman

ok i think i get it, so for example making the argument be about “shows shouldn’t prioritise pushing a message over quality” when that’s completely irrelevant to the topic at hand would be an example of a strawman argument, yes?

also i’m still waiting on an answer for what message the show is pushing

damn just hit me with the i’m rubber you’re glue

but if I haven’t made any points, then why have you replied arguing against them?

mysterious