Debunked here. She managed to never once refer to an actual Maths textbook! Spoiler alert: everyone who has claimed it’s “ambiguous” has done the same thing - no references to any Maths textbooks.
If you think I’m navigating that mess of cross linked posts, well, you’re in for a surprise.
You’re really late to this thread.
She didn’t reference any math textbooks because she made the video for commoners, aka not math majors. Her explanations make sense even if they’re technically wrong from the perspective of pure mathematics.
Unfortunately, I don’t think many people are going to see your reply, and fewer still will deal with the format you’ve chosen to present it in; an even smaller subset will likely understand the concepts you’re trying to explain.
Unfortunately, posting this, so long after the thread was active, linking to your own social media as a reference, seems a lot more like attention seeking behavior. The kind of thing I would expect from a bot or phishing attack, especially since you seem to have copy/pasted the reply on several comments. It’s like you searched for the YouTube link and just vomitted the same reply on every reference to it. That’s bot behavior.
I’m not saying you’re actually a bot, or that anything you’ve posted is incorrect at all. It just seems suspect.
I’m not actually. A lot of people don’t want to confront evidence that they’re wrong.
She didn’t reference any math textbooks because she made the video for commoners, aka not math majors.
Did you notice she’s a Physics major? In other words, she doesn’t have any Maths textbooks to reference.
Her explanations make sense
So, even when she couldn’t explain why one calculator “sometimes obeys juxtaposition, sometimes doesn’t”, that still made sense to you?
technically wrong
Bingo!
I don’t think many people are going to see your reply
These comments are going to show up in search results for the rest of eternity, so I’m quite happy to debunk the disinformation in it.
you seem to have copy/pasted the reply on several comments
3 different people referred to the same video, so yeah I did something I don’t normally do and copy/pasted for those 3 people. Read my other replies and you’ll find they’re all specific to the person I’m replying to.
It’s like you searched for the YouTube link
No, I’ve had multiple people tell me about it previously, as “proof” that Maths is ambiguous, hence why I wrote a thread debunking the claims she (and others) made.
It just seems suspect
It’s all legit, so feel free to go back and read what I’ve written given that context.
People in this thread need to watch this: https://youtu.be/lLCDca6dYpA
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/lLCDca6dYpA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
And the much longer video by the same person:
Problem with PEMDAS: Why Calculators Disagree https://youtu.be/4x-BcYCiKCk
Debunked here - she never once refers to an actual Maths textbook!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/4x-BcYCiKCk
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
This is the best video out there. A lot of people in north america have no idea.
Debunked here - she never once refers to an actual Maths textbook!
I couldn’t listen, voice way too off-putting
Really?! I find her voice incredibly sexy.
Yeah to me it sounds ultra fake try hard
Debunked here. She managed to never once refer to an actual Maths textbook! Spoiler alert: everyone who has claimed it’s “ambiguous” has done the same thing - no references to any Maths textbooks.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/lLCDca6dYpA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
If you think I’m navigating that mess of cross linked posts, well, you’re in for a surprise.
You’re really late to this thread.
She didn’t reference any math textbooks because she made the video for commoners, aka not math majors. Her explanations make sense even if they’re technically wrong from the perspective of pure mathematics.
Unfortunately, I don’t think many people are going to see your reply, and fewer still will deal with the format you’ve chosen to present it in; an even smaller subset will likely understand the concepts you’re trying to explain.
Unfortunately, posting this, so long after the thread was active, linking to your own social media as a reference, seems a lot more like attention seeking behavior. The kind of thing I would expect from a bot or phishing attack, especially since you seem to have copy/pasted the reply on several comments. It’s like you searched for the YouTube link and just vomitted the same reply on every reference to it. That’s bot behavior.
I’m not saying you’re actually a bot, or that anything you’ve posted is incorrect at all. It just seems suspect.
I’m not actually. A lot of people don’t want to confront evidence that they’re wrong.
Did you notice she’s a Physics major? In other words, she doesn’t have any Maths textbooks to reference.
So, even when she couldn’t explain why one calculator “sometimes obeys juxtaposition, sometimes doesn’t”, that still made sense to you?
Bingo!
These comments are going to show up in search results for the rest of eternity, so I’m quite happy to debunk the disinformation in it.
3 different people referred to the same video, so yeah I did something I don’t normally do and copy/pasted for those 3 people. Read my other replies and you’ll find they’re all specific to the person I’m replying to.
No, I’ve had multiple people tell me about it previously, as “proof” that Maths is ambiguous, hence why I wrote a thread debunking the claims she (and others) made.
It’s all legit, so feel free to go back and read what I’ve written given that context.