J'ai été agressé par un soi-disant prof de maths sur Mastodon pour ne pas avoir utilisé une méthode que je n'ai jamais appris, n'étant pas Anglo-Saxon (BODMAS). Heureusement, j'avais trouvé les notes d'un chercheur du CNRS. Et là voici carrément le résumé du problème. C'est toujours bon à connaître, mais ça n'excuse rien, et surtout pas les agressions verbales en commentaire. #maths #cyberharcèlement #cyberbullying

https://www.imt-nord-europe.org/newsletter/newsletter/28/article/122

A vos méninges !

8 ÷ 2 (2+2)= ?Cette équation fait le buzz (en bon français) depuis quelques semaines. Voici l’explication de cette énigme mathématique, qui a fasciné jusqu’au très sérieux New York Times. Tout le...

@silentexception Careful, you'll summon @SmartmanApps who will try to insist that he can "prove" that the only possible answer is 1. He can't, but he will certainly persist in increasingly unhinged bullshit to avoid admitting any error.

There is an additional nuance here which is that the multiplication in this expression - which is only implied, not denoted symbolically - is *typically* read as having a higher precedence than division, even though the *typical* practice is to otherwise perform multiplications and divisions from left to right.

This is *almost never* articulated explicitly in mathematics education, so such expressions are rightfully seen as ambiguous, although the tight visual connection does make it intuitive. And expressions with both such "symbol-less" multiplication and division expressed through ÷ are also very rare (though they do exist) in actual mathematics and textbooks in part for this reason.

The aforementioned user insists that 2(2 + 2) does not express multiplication (as would 2×(2+2)) but something else that he calls a "product". This is, of course, nonsense; a product is nothing more than the result of multiplication; 2(2 + 2) is just as much a product as 2×(2+2) is.

He then misreads certain explanations of how to simplify expressions using the distributive law as an instruction to apply the distributive law before all else, so, to him, this means expressing 2(2 + 2) as 4 + 4 *must* be done before anything else. He ignores the fact that textbooks show the evaluation of expressions in different orders, and that, when applied to an expression such as 2(a)³, it would have us rewrite it as (2a)³! (And then by ordinary laws of indices, this is (2a)¹⁺² = (2a)¹(2a)² = (2a)(2a)² = (2a2a)² = (2a)⁴ !!!)

Now you are forearmed in case this cyberbully happens upon you. I apologise for dumping this on you, and not in your native language as well, but hopefully you find it interesting/useful.

@FishFace that's him.

@silentexception oh lol, I had a sniff on his (and your) profile but didn't see any interaction so figured it must have been something else.

Yeah he complains bitterly about bullying while haranguing every single person who posts under the #maths tag. I tried to engage with him on another topic but he quickly blocked me. I looked at conversations from other people and every person who disagrees with him he treats with utter disdain and disrespect.

What is really fascinating is that he's been on this crusade since at least 2023, all over the internet: not just mastodon, but also twitter, bluesky, github(!) and lemmy (where I first encountered him). The fact that it's so single-minded is what makes me convinced that he's for real and not a troll - I think a troll would chat bullshit about more topics.

What's really telling is that although he says he's a maths teacher, he has *never* claimed to have a maths degree - I believe he has a degree in computer science and in education. Whenever the conversation strays into mathematical topics that are covered in an undergraduate maths course, such as elementary analysis, he betrays how out of depth he is: unfamiliar with basic concepts, unable to even follow simple mathematical arguments. Fun!

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 (@[email protected])

1/3 #MathsMonday Order of operations thread index #Mathematics #Maths #Math Introduction https://dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110807192608472798 1 The Distributive Law #DontForgetDistribution https://dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110819283738912144 2 Terms #MathsIsNeverAmbiguous https://dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110846452267056791 3 Factorising<->The Distributive Law https://dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110886637077371439 4 implicit multiplication, mnemonics https://dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110925761375035558 5 1917 (i) - Left Associativity https://dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110965810374299599 6 1917 (ii) - Lennes' letter (Terms and operators) https://dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/111005247356655843 ...

dotnet.social
@silentexception
I just translated what you said. Sorry to hear you were bullied. I suspect wasn't even a teacher (as it sounds like you do too). This is why I put all my stuff here - provide factual info for those being bullied to defuse the bully (here's the actual facts buddy!"). As you can see from my thread, the article is wrong that there's any ambiguity. The only people who ever claim it is are adults who have forgotten the rules (students never have any issues getting the right answer)
@SmartmanApps We don't use BODMAS in France, this is a page from IMT Lille Douai devient IMT Nord Europe, they have extremely high standards, they teach engineers.
@silentexception
"We don't use BODMAS in France" - Yes, I understood that, 🙂 and if you run into such a person again you have plenty of textbook references in my thread. I've even seen people who WERE taught BODMAS get it wrong, because they, wrongly, claim it only means inside the brackets, hence my thread with textbook references

@silentexception quelle surprise!

If you want some sport, I compiled some debunking screenshots, though I'm guessing you don't want to talk to him.