oh brother, it's this nonsense again. the calculator is right, modern software that works blindly left to right is wrong. this becomes obvious in algebra with variables
the distributive property is being murdered by retards who slept through middle school algebra and this will probably result in a plane crashing into a stadium full of orphans at some point
the distributive property is being murdered by retards who slept through middle school algebra and this will probably result in a plane crashing into a stadium full of orphans at some point
@deprecated_ii i just did it in my head real quick and also got 1, I don't understand where the confusion is coming from?
im not fantastic at math (anymore) and don't remember the reasoning for a lot of things, but like...
isn't this just order of operations?
im not fantastic at math (anymore) and don't remember the reasoning for a lot of things, but like...
isn't this just order of operations?
@warmbeverageenjoyer people get 9 because they divide the 6 by 2 as the first operation and end up with 3 * (1+2)
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer
No, we get 9 because ÷ and / are treated as the same symbol, meaning, that (1+2) goes first, and then, we end up with 6/2*3 = 3*3 = 9
And it's boring to explain this system over and over and over again.
But division is the same as multiplication.
If I re-write it as 6* (1/2) * (1+2), then there is no argument to be had.
@LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer and you're wrong, because 2(1+2) is the same thing as ((2*1)+(2*2)), because that's what the distributive property means
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty but here's the thing: why does the distributive property happen before the division?
I understand, when you talk in terms of algebra, it makes sense that 6/2a, where a = 1+2 will give you the result 1, but the equation 6/2(1+2) is not algebra, and 2(1+2) is just a different way to write 2 * (1+2), the fact the 2 is next to the parenthesis doesn't turn it into a special operator that bypasses PEMDAS.
In the end, math is just a language used to express calculations, and just like any language, there are some conventions, and it requires some clarity on the part of the person writing it. Just like the other stupid equation that caused internet drama earlier this year, this is something that can be solved with the liberal use of parenthesis, you can't just have a regular equation with no context whatsoever and expect people to treat it as an algebraic equation.
I understand, when you talk in terms of algebra, it makes sense that 6/2a, where a = 1+2 will give you the result 1, but the equation 6/2(1+2) is not algebra, and 2(1+2) is just a different way to write 2 * (1+2), the fact the 2 is next to the parenthesis doesn't turn it into a special operator that bypasses PEMDAS.
In the end, math is just a language used to express calculations, and just like any language, there are some conventions, and it requires some clarity on the part of the person writing it. Just like the other stupid equation that caused internet drama earlier this year, this is something that can be solved with the liberal use of parenthesis, you can't just have a regular equation with no context whatsoever and expect people to treat it as an algebraic equation.
@Suzu @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty Because 2(1+2) is its own expression. And yes, 6/2(1+2) follows the same rules as algebra. Why would it be any different? What's the point of teaching arithmetic rules if they're not going to be foundational to algebra?
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty
OK, here I have a mathematician explaining this exact equation in a way that's easier than what I would do. And I'll use it because he reached the same conclusion as me, so I have confirmation bias.
https://invidious.varishangout.net/watch?v=URcUvFIUIhQ
But note that he doesn't say anything about the distributive property, because it really doesn't fit here. Saying that 2(1+2) is it's own equation that must be solved separately is not true, because there is nothing saying it is. You are assuming that 2(1+2) is just a 6 that was split, instead of being a equation that was reached through the insertion of numbers into variables or through the solving of previous equations.
Note that I had a wrong assumption in my last post, because I was taking a look at my college algebra books, and even in algebra you have a liberal use of parenthesis to avoid this kind of confusion.
6/2a is completely different from 6/(2a), wherein the first one is seen as
6
__ a
2
and the second is seen as
6
__
2a
(the formatting is terrible, but I think it can be understood).
OK, here I have a mathematician explaining this exact equation in a way that's easier than what I would do. And I'll use it because he reached the same conclusion as me, so I have confirmation bias.
https://invidious.varishangout.net/watch?v=URcUvFIUIhQ
But note that he doesn't say anything about the distributive property, because it really doesn't fit here. Saying that 2(1+2) is it's own equation that must be solved separately is not true, because there is nothing saying it is. You are assuming that 2(1+2) is just a 6 that was split, instead of being a equation that was reached through the insertion of numbers into variables or through the solving of previous equations.
Note that I had a wrong assumption in my last post, because I was taking a look at my college algebra books, and even in algebra you have a liberal use of parenthesis to avoid this kind of confusion.
6/2a is completely different from 6/(2a), wherein the first one is seen as
6
__ a
2
and the second is seen as
6
__
2a
(the formatting is terrible, but I think it can be understood).
@Suzu @deprecated_ii @LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer
I think what confuses people is 2(3) being written as it is. You have 6/2 having a symbol while 2(3) doesn't, even though this is just a short way of writing it and 6/2(3) = 6/2*(3). this then leads to thinking the one without a symbol is "closer" and needs to be solved first. Though your take is likely true as well.
I think what confuses people is 2(3) being written as it is. You have 6/2 having a symbol while 2(3) doesn't, even though this is just a short way of writing it and 6/2(3) = 6/2*(3). this then leads to thinking the one without a symbol is "closer" and needs to be solved first. Though your take is likely true as well.
@Feinmuehrer @LukeAlmighty @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer I actually remember back during the previous drama that a lot of people were reaching the 1 conclusion by saying that the symbol ÷ meant you had to divide everything on the left side by everything on the right side. I though these people were just dumb, but, as he explained, it seems there is some hystorical basis on it being used like that a long time ago.
@Suzu @Feinmuehrer @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty So the new cope is "they started teaching math wrong in the last 15 years, so everyone who learned math before that is wrong". Got it.
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @Feinmuehrer That's not a cope.
The people who were doing that were using an archaic denotation that is controversial because even in the historic sense it's not sure it was like that, and in this denotation somehow the ÷ symbol was different from the / symbol. The mathematician in the video I posted talk about this.
Your mistake here is in using the distributive property in a completely arbitrary way and deciding that this is the correct way, when we have mathematicians, researchers and tools saying the complete opposite: that you solve left to right and then distribute.
As I mentioned, even in algebra they use parenthesis to avoid this, 6/2a is different from 6/(2a), which is what you are doing here.
The people who were doing that were using an archaic denotation that is controversial because even in the historic sense it's not sure it was like that, and in this denotation somehow the ÷ symbol was different from the / symbol. The mathematician in the video I posted talk about this.
Your mistake here is in using the distributive property in a completely arbitrary way and deciding that this is the correct way, when we have mathematicians, researchers and tools saying the complete opposite: that you solve left to right and then distribute.
As I mentioned, even in algebra they use parenthesis to avoid this, 6/2a is different from 6/(2a), which is what you are doing here.
>when we have mathematicians, researchers and tools saying the complete opposite
A mathematician that was taught common core?
A mathematician that was taught common core?
@MCMLXVIIOTG @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @deprecated_ii @Feinmuehrer as opposed to what? Doing-operations-in-the-order-I-want-because-fuck-it core?
@Suzu @MCMLXVIIOTG @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @Feinmuehrer Stop using PEMDAS as a mental crutch and maybe you won't get confused. This whole discussion just shows PEMDAS is worthless because it isn't taught correctly and is interpreted multiple ways.
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer PEMDAS is not a "mental crutch" and is not "worthless". I agree that it seems it is taught incorrectly and leads to confusion.
Tell me, what's the answer to the equation 6/2 * (1+2)?
Tell me, what's the answer to the equation 6/2 * (1+2)?
@Suzu @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer 9, because 2 * (1+2) is not the exact same expression as 2(1+2). which is what I've been trying to get across this entire time
and PEMDAS is a mental crutch. I haven't actually thought "please excuse my dear aunt sally" since middle school, I just *know* how to execute algebra, and I do so accurately
and PEMDAS is a mental crutch. I haven't actually thought "please excuse my dear aunt sally" since middle school, I just *know* how to execute algebra, and I do so accurately
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer so what you are telling me is that 2( (which is an implicit way of writing 2 * ( ) is somehow different from 2 *, and should be solved before anything else. And somehow you think everyone else is confused.
@Suzu @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer Well gee whiz, I'm sorry that math has more going on than basic arithmetic and you need to learn about implied multiplication. And I sure hope nobody adds more symbols than +, -, /, and *, that would be fucking crazy.
@deprecated_ii @Suzu @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer again, suzu doesn't need to learn about implied multiplication. suzu already knows that 2() means 2*(), and JUST SAID SO. The dispute here is not about multiplication but division. Order of operations is complete distraction from the simple meaning of the notation here: WHAT is being divided by WHAT. And saying, oh it's special because you have a fetish for a sixth-grade abbreviation of multiplication symbols, so that later it'll be easier to talk about polynomials, won't save you when you get to slightly more complex expressions.
@apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu Shut the fuck up faggot. You're not the only person here who's taken university math.
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu indeed, everyone's taken university and only you have taken retard pills that keep you from seeing that the notation is the issue.
2/(x+1)(y-1)
is this 2 / (xy - x + y -1) or is it (2/(x+1))(y-1)?
the answer is: this isn't how math is done.
2/(x+1)(y-1)
is this 2 / (xy - x + y -1) or is it (2/(x+1))(y-1)?
the answer is: this isn't how math is done.
@apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu Wow I guess I just got lucky then. The whole time, lucked my whole way through. Amazing.
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu no, the options
a. you're butthurt and just lying about your own experience with math, where linear division notations are not used at all except when initially teaching division to children
b. you had a shitty calculator that happened to agree with your intuition about how to linearize math notation. Other people with other calculators may have had to read their manuals more correctly, but punching shit into a calculator isn't math to begin with
20 years ago I had an HP49G that would build a two-dimensional expression with precise division bars, the same as you'd draw on paper. If they're making other calculators you should leave them to accounts.
a. you're butthurt and just lying about your own experience with math, where linear division notations are not used at all except when initially teaching division to children
b. you had a shitty calculator that happened to agree with your intuition about how to linearize math notation. Other people with other calculators may have had to read their manuals more correctly, but punching shit into a calculator isn't math to begin with
20 years ago I had an HP49G that would build a two-dimensional expression with precise division bars, the same as you'd draw on paper. If they're making other calculators you should leave them to accounts.
@apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu okay, I'm going right back to:
shut the fuck up, faggot
shut the fuck up, faggot
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu ok, so you're a butthurt lying retard. Mad about the correct way to do something inherently wrong.
@apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu Nope, you're just a huge faggot.
If I presented this equation as written to anybody I grew up with who was okay at math, or anybody I knew in college when I was in fact taking higher math, or engineers from my parents' generation including my other father, or my professors and teachers, they would agree with me. And for the same rationale.
Maybe there really are two camps here, and in your universe the answer is 9. If so, I hope you never work on any problem that matters that will influence the physical world in any way within 500 miles of me or anyone I care about.
Now go fuck yourself.
If I presented this equation as written to anybody I grew up with who was okay at math, or anybody I knew in college when I was in fact taking higher math, or engineers from my parents' generation including my other father, or my professors and teachers, they would agree with me. And for the same rationale.
Maybe there really are two camps here, and in your universe the answer is 9. If so, I hope you never work on any problem that matters that will influence the physical world in any way within 500 miles of me or anyone I care about.
Now go fuck yourself.
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu The three camps here are
1. (you) this obviously ambiguous expression has a precise meaning based on my affection for a particular abbreviation of multiplicatino
2. (suzu) this obviously ambiguous expression has a precise meaning because, lacking any such affection, it would need parentheses to have the meaning you want
3. (me) this obviously ambiguous expression isn't math and doesn't matter. You need to talk to a calculator, or to a a programming language compiler, then you squeeze math into the form the calculator/compiler wants, and if that's #1 or #2 the only difference is whose intuitions are slighted.
1. (you) this obviously ambiguous expression has a precise meaning based on my affection for a particular abbreviation of multiplicatino
2. (suzu) this obviously ambiguous expression has a precise meaning because, lacking any such affection, it would need parentheses to have the meaning you want
3. (me) this obviously ambiguous expression isn't math and doesn't matter. You need to talk to a calculator, or to a a programming language compiler, then you squeeze math into the form the calculator/compiler wants, and if that's #1 or #2 the only difference is whose intuitions are slighted.
@apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu Shut the fuck up, faggot.
Follow
@apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu
Do you guys seriously not get this is literally @deprecated_ii right now?
@deprecated_ii @LukeAlmighty @warmbeverageenjoyer @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu
deprecated interview
Q: ok I'm going to put some math on this whiteboard, it's very simple, and I just to make sure we're on the page. What's the answer to 18/3(3)? Is it 2, or 18?
A: huh? why did you write it that way?
Q: 2, or 18? This is simple.
A: you have a whiteboard, man, why are you writing it that way? Is this like some TI calculator notation?
Q: I want to know if you math. If you know math you should know this.
A: can you write the expression the way a mathematician would?
Q: ... you're a programmer, aren't you.
A: look it could be one or the other
Q: GET THE FUCK OUT. YOU FRAUD.
deprecated interview
Q: ok I'm going to put some math on this whiteboard, it's very simple, and I just to make sure we're on the page. What's the answer to 18/3(3)? Is it 2, or 18?
A: huh? why did you write it that way?
Q: 2, or 18? This is simple.
A: you have a whiteboard, man, why are you writing it that way? Is this like some TI calculator notation?
Q: I want to know if you math. If you know math you should know this.
A: can you write the expression the way a mathematician would?
Q: ... you're a programmer, aren't you.
A: look it could be one or the other
Q: GET THE FUCK OUT. YOU FRAUD.
@apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu Cool strawman queer. What'd you get on your math SAT?
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu I took the SAT competitively for school, and then never actually took it. Went into the military. Want to ask me about the ASVAB? Perfect score on not fucking up with numbers.
@apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu There isn't an answer you can give that would impress me relative to my own scores, on the SAT, or ACT, or ASVAB. Maybe you can infer why that is.
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu what I'm inferring is that you had more than zero years of calculator-based math education, and it's broken your brain. You've got a Texas Instruments(TM) brand on your ass, or Casio or whatever, that makes you think its arbitrary degradation of math expressions is correct, instead of just what you were exposed to.
If that's not the case, I'm back to inferring retard pills.
If that's not the case, I'm back to inferring retard pills.
@apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu Literally the opposite of what I've said. Just leave the thread guy, you're out of your depth. And pretending I'm stupid doesn't make it so.
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu dude, let me be the first to break this to you: there is a disagreement over WHAT is divided by WHAT. Literally, what's the numerator or the denominator. What is even being expressed by this set of symbols.
You are looking at this kind of a disagreement and are concluding that people don't know how order of evaluation works in math.
You are a drooling fucking retard. Past scores don't change that. Maybe you just need to pull a fork out of your brain.
You are looking at this kind of a disagreement and are concluding that people don't know how order of evaluation works in math.
You are a drooling fucking retard. Past scores don't change that. Maybe you just need to pull a fork out of your brain.
@apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @deprecated_ii @Feinmuehrer @Suzu its easy to see which is which if you arent a retard. the (this one here ->) top/left is the numerator in the equation. this is 4th grade stuff
@apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu Well actually I'm smarter than you sport. And you know how I know? Because I'm not the one going scorched earth over this stupid shit. Yeah I'll call you a faggot but I'm not the one making specific personal attacks like an obsessed sperg, of which there are SEVERAL in this thread. You don't even know what my actual position is because you're so busy erecting strawmen to attack, and at this point you've annoyed me to the point that no actual discussion is possible.
Now go get some fucking perspective and maybe a fucking life while you're at it.
Now go get some fucking perspective and maybe a fucking life while you're at it.
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu my 'strawman' is a direct statement of what it replies to. What I know about your position is that you care deeply about how an ambiguous expression is interpreted. You just swore me after my "three camps" post so I also know you're not only annoyed at one camp; you care about your camp.
>not making specific personal attacks
fuck off fag? I'm smarter than you? What are your SAT scores? "Now go get some fucking perspective and maybe a fucking life while you're at it."
I don't think 'retard pills' or a 'fork in the brain' are that personal of attacks. Those are conditions you can recover from. Meanwhile you think just swearing and saying you're not reading anymore, and accusing people of engaging in strawmen and being completely wrong about that, are all fine?
You're so mad you didn't even notice what a bad reply I made just now. Order of operation are all about math notation, as a rule like "M before A" is how you can write 2*3+4 without needing parentheses. The real difference is again that PEMDAS applies to common math notation and your linear / handling that cares about 2() abbreviations is only between you and your calculator.
>not making specific personal attacks
fuck off fag? I'm smarter than you? What are your SAT scores? "Now go get some fucking perspective and maybe a fucking life while you're at it."
I don't think 'retard pills' or a 'fork in the brain' are that personal of attacks. Those are conditions you can recover from. Meanwhile you think just swearing and saying you're not reading anymore, and accusing people of engaging in strawmen and being completely wrong about that, are all fine?
You're so mad you didn't even notice what a bad reply I made just now. Order of operation are all about math notation, as a rule like "M before A" is how you can write 2*3+4 without needing parentheses. The real difference is again that PEMDAS applies to common math notation and your linear / handling that cares about 2() abbreviations is only between you and your calculator.
@apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu keep digging that hole
@deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @Suzu the hole is two posts deep: "three camps" and "deprecated interview". Any time your pills wear off and you want to find out WTF happened with this conversation, just read those and skip all the shit, including especially every single post you've made in this thread.
@apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @deprecated_ii @Feinmuehrer @Suzu This is like asking someone what the output of a C program with clear UB will be based on how gcc -O2 compiles it, and asserting that that is the only way that C is done and if you don't know then you don't know how to program.
@LukeAlmighty @apropos @warmbeverageenjoyer @MCMLXVIIOTG @Feinmuehrer @deprecated_ii this is the gist of the whole argument
@Suzu @LukeAlmighty @Feinmuehrer @MCMLXVIIOTG @apropos @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer
>You solve from left to right
Except when you don't.
>You solve from left to right
Except when you don't.
@LoliHat @Feinmuehrer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @apropos @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer and when you don't?
You have an order of precedence of operations, and when they have the same precedence, you solve from left to right, it's pretty simple, actually.
You have an order of precedence of operations, and when they have the same precedence, you solve from left to right, it's pretty simple, actually.
@Suzu @Feinmuehrer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @apropos @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer
Equations should demonstrate relationships not orders of operation.
Equations should demonstrate relationships not orders of operation.
@LoliHat @Feinmuehrer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @apropos @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer equations should be understandable by people reading them. That's why you use precedence modifiers like parenthesis, and that's why you have a standard saying what is solved first.
@Suzu @Feinmuehrer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @apropos @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer
>equations should be understandable by people reading them.
So, PEDMAS/PEMDAS is for morons?
>equations should be understandable by people reading them.
So, PEDMAS/PEMDAS is for morons?
@LoliHat @Feinmuehrer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @apropos @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer in a way, you could tell that postfix notation is for morons too, because it is done in a manner that allows for people who know the rules of it to read an equation written for it
@Suzu @Feinmuehrer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @apropos @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer
>in a way, you could tell that postfix notation is for morons too, because it is done in a manner that allows for people who know the rules of it to read an equation written for it
No, it's just doing it as you would actually do step by step on paper.
>in a way, you could tell that postfix notation is for morons too, because it is done in a manner that allows for people who know the rules of it to read an equation written for it
No, it's just doing it as you would actually do step by step on paper.
@Suzu @Feinmuehrer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @apropos @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer
No, like someone who actually knows mathematics.
No, like someone who actually knows mathematics.
@LoliHat @Feinmuehrer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @apropos @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer you realioze that saying something like "PEMDAS is for morons" is basically the same as saying "grammar rules and dictionaries are for morons", right?
PEMDAS is a simple set of rules that allows for a standard math language and permit that people who know this language write equations that can be read and understood by other people who also know those rules.
RPN/postfix notation is the same thing, it's just another set of rules. And RPN has it's uses, but it can become too verbose and unwieldy for most stuff.
PEMDAS is a simple set of rules that allows for a standard math language and permit that people who know this language write equations that can be read and understood by other people who also know those rules.
RPN/postfix notation is the same thing, it's just another set of rules. And RPN has it's uses, but it can become too verbose and unwieldy for most stuff.
@Suzu @Feinmuehrer @LukeAlmighty @MCMLXVIIOTG @apropos @deprecated_ii @warmbeverageenjoyer
>"grammar rules and dictionaries are for morons", right?
When it irregardlessly inhibits natural linguistic evolution for shizzle.
>RPN/postfix notation is the same thing, it's just another set of rules. And RPN has it's uses, but it can become too verbose and unwieldy for most stuff.
Quite the opposite.
>"grammar rules and dictionaries are for morons", right?
When it irregardlessly inhibits natural linguistic evolution for shizzle.
>RPN/postfix notation is the same thing, it's just another set of rules. And RPN has it's uses, but it can become too verbose and unwieldy for most stuff.
Quite the opposite.
I learned something though, and that's that math is not as universal as I thought, and if you're foreign I'm going to inspect any math you do with a fucking microscope because you probably did something absolutely idiotic.
...And now I don't trust programmers to do math at all. Holy shit what a bunch of egotistical queers.