A Complete Guide to Converting Markdown to PDF in .NET C#

No it doesn’t 🤣🤣🤣 I have said the whole time that a(bc)²=ab²c², which is exactly what this textbook does 🙄 a(b+c) is different to a(bc)², duuuhhh 🙄

You don’t have an answer for that because you’re a fraud

says person who can’t quote any part saying it works differently to how I said, and in fact quoted a part showing it works exactly how I said 🤣🤣🤣

If you want textbooks that also disprove how you pretend a(b+c)n works

been telling you the whole time it’s irrelevent to a(b+c) which has no exponent Mr. False Equivalence 🙄

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 8 days ago

That just displays the accumulator

Which is a single value stack, 🙄 but this calculator does indeed have a multivalue stack, so as to be able to do a+bxc, where it will put a+ on the stack (that’s two values, a and +), calculate bxc, then pop the stack and do the addition. If you instead want to do (a+b)xc, you have to press equals after a+b so that it will get evaluated before the Multiplication, because it doesn’t have Brackets keys 🙄

(a+b)c+(d+e)f “cannot be done as a simple calculation, it must be split into two parts.” Because there’s no stack

No, that’s because it doesn’t have any brackets keys 🙄 You can get away with one set of brackets as per the method shown, but you can’t do that with multiple brackets. You really have no idea how Maths or calculators work! 🤣🤣🤣

Here’s an online emulator for the Sinclair Cambridge, the upgraded scientific model

We’ve already established that’s a chain calculator Mr. needs remedial reading classes 🙄

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 8 days ago

You weren’t talking about a(b+c)

Dude, I’ve always been talking about a(b+c) Mr. abysmal reading comprehension 🙄

you were talking about a(b)2.

Nope! Textbooks write ab² if they mean (axb²). They never write a(b)²

Which doesn’t work the way you said

It works exactly the way I said 🙄

according to this maths textbook

This Maths textbook is about a(bc)², not a(b+c) 🙄 You need remedial reading classes

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 8 days ago

Yeah hey which of us said += and which of us said “press the equals” afterward?

I said both. you said “does not have an equals key” - even though it quite clearly does, but you wanted to gaslight us into believing it doesn’t have one because it proved you were wrong 🤣🤣🤣

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 8 days ago

A stack isn’t a tree

That’s right. Welcome to you’ve been wrong all along.

2 2 3 + / has no parentheses,

(2+3)/2

get your eyes checked.

You think the binary trees look different?? It’s you who needs to get your eyes checked! 🤣🤣🤣

2 3 + gets resolved when it happens

Due to being in brackets, as per the binary tree for the 2 different notations for the same expression.

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 8 days ago

“book 2, page 9” expands 6(ab)3 to 6(ab)(ab)(ab)

Yes, that’s right. a(bc)²=ab²c². That’s got nothing to do with a(b+c)=(ab+ac) 🙄

Rub rub rub

Stop rubbing yourself off - it’s clearly making you blind 🤣🤣🤣

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 8 days ago

this linked comment

Dude, why didn’t you say before? In the first place you were talking about the link, and I told you that the link took me to the index, and it took until now for you to say it was never in the link. 🙄 You just kept posting the same link to a comment and not to the textbook 🙄

PDF page 27

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Did you even read it??? 🤣🤣🤣

In other words, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), like I have been saying all along 🤣🤣🤣

Also says this…

says they are applying The Distributive Property, NOT The Distributive LAW 🤣🤣🤣

Now, that was all on Page 27, which did not include the example you gave. Where is it? On Page 28, talk about not being able to read BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 🤣🤣🤣

And, same applies - they’re using The Distributive Property, NOT The Distributive Law 🤣🤣🤣

showing an equation that does not obey your made-up bullshit

That’s because I don’t have any made-up bullshit - only you do! 🤣🤣🤣 You need to learn to read dude. Quite clearly states they are using the Distributive Property in the process of collecting like Terms, which isn’t using The Distributive Law to Expand Brackets. You need some remedial reading classes dude 🙄

In a maths textbook

Yep, and does not contradict anything that I have said 🤣🤣🤣

This would be easier if you could read

says person who gave the wrong page number, about the wrong rule, in the wrong topic 🤣🤣🤣

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 8 days ago

What is this irrelevant equation?

You don’t know how to read infix notation?? THAT explains a LOT! 🤣🤣🤣

We’re talking about 2 2 3 + /

Yep, exact same equation - see the binary tree 🙄

There’s no tree, just a stack

Ok, so now you’re admitting to not knowing how programming works either. Got it.

Do you not know what words mean?

You clearly don’t! 🤣🤣🤣

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 8 days ago

Follow this fully intentional link,

Which you are admitting is fully intentional NOT the link for this…

I’ll take that as an admission then that it in fact does not prove me wrong, as you first claimed, since, despite repeated requests, you have been unable to tell me where it supposedly proves me wrong, which of course I knew would be the case to begin with when you failed to tell me where it supposedly proves me wrong 😂

learn some goddamn reading comprehension.

says person still posting the wrong link 🙄

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 8 days ago

The answer to 2 2 3 + / does not involve brackets.

(2+3)/2

Don’t you know all equations are secretly RPN, in the background?

No they aren’t liar. They are broken down into binary trees. I teach Computer Science as well dude.

Here’s the binary tree for 2 2 3 + /

Here’s the binary tree for (2+3)/2

Oh look! it’s the exact same tree! Who woulda thought. Oh yeah, me - I’ve only been telling you that the whole damn time 😂

There’s only a stack,

Yep, that’s where things in brackets get put alright - see binary tree above😂

the rules for a stack are that brackets do not work

Except I just proved they do 😂

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 8 days ago

Have to reply to your other post here, because you hit the maximum comment depth with your rubbish.

I thought they were called “products” not “multiplications”

That’s right, as per Page 36 of Modern Algebra, published in 1965, as opposed to Advanced Algebra, published in 1912., but if you think we still call it “Multiplication” you’re more than welcome to find a modern textbook which calls it that, instead of relying on a 113 year old textbook 🙄

If you can find an explicit textbook example where writing a(b)²

What did you not understand about textbooks write ab² if they meant (axb²)?

that’s another way you can prove your good faith

I already proved it with all my other textbook references, which you keep ignoring 🙄

the exponent could be anything other than 1

In other words, you refuse to believe the rule that I have already quoted multiple times, because it proves you are wrong about this meme, and so trying to derail the argument, still, with your false equivalence argument, speaking of lacking good faith 🙄

Likewise, if you can find any explicit textbook example which specifically mentions an “exception” to the distributive law

There aren’t any exceptions. I’m not sure why you’re having trouble with that. You want me to find evidence of something I have said all along doesn’t exist 😂

I’m not saying that such an explicit example is the only way to demonstrate your claim

says person who to date has refused to accept what any textbook has said about it 🙄

I’m just trying to give you more opportunities to prove that you’re not just a troll

Since when do trolls post Maths textbooks backing them up? 🤣🤣🤣

that it’s possible to have a productive discussion.

says person who has rejected literally every Maths textbook I’ve posted. 🙄

You insist you’re talking about mathematical rules that cannot be violated

as per Maths textbooks 🙄

so it should be no problem to find an explicit mention of them

…and I already posted many of them, but for some reason you find them unacceptable (that reason being that they prove you are wrong 😂 )

you should remember that you are saying that the practice of calculators, mathematical tools, programming languages and mathematical software are all wrong

Nope, liar. All calculators except for Texas Instruments and e-calcs are correct - certainly all my calculators are correct (as can be seen in the video in the thread). Same thread shows the reason that programmers are almost all wrong - they don’t even all get it wrong in the same way - everyone gets it wrong in different ways, which debunks the whole idea of them following any rules 😂

that my interpretation of your own textbooks is wrong

Which you would’ve found out for yourself, had you read more than 2 sentences out of them. 🙄 Welcome to what happens when you only read the scaffolding part of a lesson, and not the new content part of the lesson 🙄

if you show no ability to admit error

says person who has failed to admit their error about the calculators. 🙄For me to do so would require me having made an error to begin with, which I haven’t, which is why you’ve been unable to say where I’ve made an error 🙄

to admit that disagreement from competing authorities casts doubt on your claims

There isn’t any disagreement from competing authorities, and yet you still refuse to admit you’re wrong 🙄

to evince your controversial claims with explicit examples that are not subject to interpretational contortions,

says the only person who has made such contortions, such as “means” means “equals” 🙄

the likelihood is that you’re not willing to ever see truth

You you mean, as evidenced by the fact that you had already dismissed me as being good faith in your above post before I had even seen THIS post - something, something, judge, jury, and executioner 🙄

there’s no point arguing with such a person

I’m not arguing with you - I’m debunking your rubbish claims lest any reader fall prey to them

sorry for making multiple replies on the same point

Which at the end of it all you had still failed to make a point.

As my own show of good faith, I do see that one of your textbooks (Chrystal) has the convention that a number “carries with it” a + or -, which is suppressed in the case of a term-initial positive number

No, a show of good faith by you would be 1. accepting that axb and ab are different, as per the page you reference above, which I’ll come back to in a tick, 2. accepting The Distributive Law, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), is a thing found in many Maths textbooks (all of which you ignored), otherwise all you have conceded was yet another side-quest on your part because you refuse to concede anything which is actually relevant

So, you started this post with referencing Page 6 of Advanced Algebra (as proven by you quoting the bit about “Multiplication”, which explicitly shows that bxc and bc ARE NOT THE SAME THING, and yet here you are still not acknowledging this fact.

a÷bxc=12÷3x4=16, a÷bc=12÷(3x4)=1

I’ll explain why I think this is a bad convention

It’s not a convention, it’s a rule 🙄

why the formal first-order language of arithmetic doesn’t have this convention

No-one cares 🙄 Most people don’t go to university and learn niche rules, everyone goes to high school and learns the general rules

You failed to demonstrate any good faith

says the person who actually demonstrated no good faith 🙄 and was unable to back up anything they said with a textbook

so this is the end of this conversation

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out

Your reply reveals that you even understand that you were wrong

Nope!

“it’s designed that way”

Yep, that shows I was correct about “simple” calculators, whereas chain calculators were designed that way, but that was used as moving goalposts by the person claiming this applied to “simple” calculators, which was disproven by the manual showing that it did indeed have a stack and obey the order of operations rules, hence the goalposts got moved, again 🙄

the language changed

You think it doesn’t change?? BWAHAHAHAHAHA 🤣🤣🤣 But sure, Mr. I’m (not) showing good faith, go ahead and show us a modern textbook which calls Products “Multiplication”. I’ll wait. 😂 Oh wait. you said the conversation was over. Too bad you can’t prove your point then… again

but are so prideful,

Correct is the word you’re looking for

so averse to ceding ground,

says person who has failed to come up with a single valid point that I could therefore cede to 🙄

that you just… can’t… say it!

says person who has failed to admit they are wrong about things they have been proven wrong about 🙄

The children you really ought to stop teaching are more mature than this.

They’re more mature than you yes. They have no problem at all with The Distributive Law and why it exists, and can see their calculators know this also.

You’re an embarrassment to the profession.

says the actual embarrassment who can’t back up anything they say with any Maths textbook 🙄

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 8 days ago

Man, this whole post has been embarrassing for you

Nope. I’m the only one who has backed up what they’ve said with Maths textbooks 🙄

I can’t help but notice youve once again failed to address prefix and postfix notations.

What is it that you want addressed?

And that you’ve not actually made any argument other than “nuh uh”

Backed up by Maths textbooks 🙄

We can all tell you’re not a maths teacher

Says person who actually isn’t a Maths teacher, hence no textbooks 😂

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 8 days ago

You have a masters but you can’t differentiate between notation and the concept it is trying to convey

By which you mean you mean you don’t have a Masters and can’t differentiate between notation and rules 🙄

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 10 days ago

A “teacher” who doesn’t know that all lessons are simplifications that get corrected at a higher level,

As opposed to a Maths teacher who knows there are no corrections made at a higher level. Go ahead and look for a Maths textbook which includes one of these mysterious “corrections” that you refer to - I’ll wait 😂

refers to children’s textbook as an infallible source of college level information

A high school Maths textbook most certainly is an infallible source of “college level” information, given it contains the exact same rules 😂

A “teacher” incapable of differentiating between rules of a convention and the laws of mathematics

Well, that’s you! 😂 The one who quoted Wikipedia and not a Maths textbook 😂

A “teacher” incapable of looking up information on notations of their own specialization

You again 😂 Wikipedia isn’t a Maths textbook

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 10 days ago

I love how confident you are about something you clearly have no knowledge of.

says person confidently proving they have no knowledge of it to a Maths teacher 🤣

At least if we’re judging by word count

from Maths textbooks, which for you still stands at 0

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 10 days ago

My dude sit in a university lecture for math majors

You know I have a Masters in Maths, right? 🤣

Your school books arent gospel

Proofs are, and these things are very easy to prove 🙄

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 10 days ago

My dude sit in a university lecture for math majors

You know I have a Masters in Maths, right? 🤣

Your school books arent gospel

Proofs are, and these things are very easy to prove 🙄

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 · 11 days ago

when talking about four-function calculators that do not have a stack

Chain calculators, as the second one said in the manual

Insisting ‘but it does have a stack!’ is the problem

The first one does have a stack. 🙄 You refusing to see it is the problem

And read usernames

Your mind’s been bleached - explains a lot 😂

The Sinclair Executive in that manual does not have an equals key

It has a += key. If the next keypress is a number it’s interpreted as +, if the next key pressed isn’t a number, like the x button, it’s interpeted as equals Duuuuhhh It even explicitly points out to you that the result of that keypress is (a+b) 🙄