A division is defined as a multiplication
No it isn’t. Multiplication is defined as repeated addition. Division isn’t repeated subtraction. They just happen to have opposite effects if you treat the quotient as being the result of dividing.
Comment on A fake Facebook event disguised as a math problem has been one of its top posts for 6 months
iglou@programming.dev 1 month agoNo, it should simply be "Parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, addition.
A division is defined as a multiplication, and a substraction is defined as an addition. I am so confused everytime I see people arguing about this, as this is basic real number arithmetics that every kid in my country learns at 12 yo, when movong on from the simplified version you learn in elementary school.
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
iglou@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Yes, it is. The division of a by b in the set of real numbers and the set of rational numbers (which are, de facto, the default sets used in most professions) is defined as the multiplication of a by the multiplicative inverse of b. Alternative definitions are also based on a multiplication.
That’s why divisions are called an auxilliary operation.
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Yes, it is
No it isn’t.
The division of a by b in the set of real numbers and the set of rational numbers (which are, de facto, the default sets used in most professions) is defined as the multiplication of a by the multiplicative inverse of b
No it isn’t. The Quotient is defined as the number obtained when you divide the Dividend by the Divisor. Here it is straight out of Euler…
Alternative definitions are also based on a multiplication
Emphasis on “alternative”, not actual.
iglou@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
No it isn’t.
Yes, it is.
No it isn’t. The Quotient is defined as the number obtained when you divide the Dividend by the Divisor. Here it is straight out of Euler…
I’m defining the division operation, not the quotient. Yes, the quotient is obtained by dividing… Now define dividing.
Emphasis on “alternative”, not actual.
The actual is the one I gave. I did not give the alternative definitions. That’s why I said they are also defined based on a multiplication, implying the non-alternative ones (understand, the avtual one) was the one I gave.
Feel free to send your entire Euler document rather than screenshotting the one part you thought makes you right.
Note, by the way, that Euler isn’t the only mathematician who contributed to the modern definitions in algebra and arithmetics.
13igTyme@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You want PEMA with knowledge of what is defined, when people can’t even understand PEMDAS. You wish for too much.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
I hate most math eduction because it’s all about memorizing formulas and rules, and then memorizing exceptions. The user above’s system is easier to learn, because there’s no exceptions or weirdness. You just learn the rule that division is multiplication and subtraction is addition. They’re just written in a different notation. It’s simpler, not more difficult. It just requires being educated on it. Yes, it’s harder if you weren’t obviously, as is everything you weren’t educated on.
Mistic@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That’s because they aren’t teaching math. They’re teaching “tricks” to solve equations easier, which can lead to more confusion.
Like the PEMDAS thing that’s being discussed here. There’s no such thing as “order of operations” in math, but it’s easier to teach that there is.
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Yes we are. Adults forgetting it is another matter altogether.
Yes there is! 😂
No, I know you’re wrong.
If you don’t solve binary operators before unary operators you get wrong answers. 2+3x4=14, not 20. 3x4=3+3+3+3 by definition
iglou@programming.dev 1 month ago
I’m just confused as to how that is not common knowledge. The country I speak of is France, and we’re not exactly known for our excellent maths education.