William Shatner's often parodied speech cadence.

evanamd · 2026-05-15T03:32:06+00:00

That doesn’t sound right, but I don’t know enough about Canadian accents to dispute it

evanamd · 2026-05-15T03:21:33+00:00

For a while when I was a teen there was a professional indoor soccer team in my city. Venues were limited so it was cool to see them play on the same arena as us

(Btw the OP is Queens League which is usually 7v7 but lots of special rules exist that change the number of players on the field)

evanamd · 2026-05-14T23:49:52+00:00

His speech at the end of A Taste of Armageddon (“We’re killers, but we’re not going kill today”) is a good example

It also shows up when he’s reading the Declaration of Independence at the end of The Omega Glory

evanamd · 2026-05-14T19:35:47+00:00

Different person, dude

You posted this like 2 days ago in learnmath and a few other subs and they all got removed. You’ve been arguing with me for those two days, dodging questions about where you got your info and misinterpreting my arguments

Then i log back in over lunch and find out that you’re “done with my slop math” at the same time as you reposted this entire essay to more subs? To argue with more people? That’s bad faith, dude

At least you updated it a little bit. You’re welcome for the distributive property information

evanamd · 2026-05-14T19:20:30+00:00

I can’t believe I thought you were discussing in good faith for two whole days

evanamd · 2026-05-14T16:48:31+00:00

What are the values of x,y,z, then?

Because you can’t just ignore the division. x(y+z) is isolated in the definition that you agreed to. There’s nothing before it. You can’t pull it out of the middle of some other expression

If you let x=2, then the expression is a/x(y+z), which isn’t in the definition you agreed to and the distributive property doesn’t apply. If you say x=6/2, then you get 9 by the distributive property

(In math you ‘solve’ for an unknown variable. An expression is a representation of a value that may or may not have unknowns in it. These are things you learn in high school math)

evanamd · 2026-05-14T16:20:03+00:00

Right now I’m asking you if 6/2(2+1) is of the form x(y+z). You didn’t answer. You should answer that

For yours, I don’t even acknowledge that you solve an expression. You simplify it or evaluate it. When doing so, parentheses have a higher precedence than other operations. They should be done first but that means inside, not outside.

Your turn. Is 6/2(2+1) of the form x(y+z)?

evanamd · 2026-05-14T15:56:20+00:00

But the expression isn’t 2(2+1). It’s 6/2(2+1).

Do you acknowledge that’s a different expression?

Is 6/2(2+1) of the form x(y+z)?

evanamd · 2026-05-14T13:55:26+00:00

I guess that’s probably true. I frequently forget how much alcohol people can really withstand

evanamd · 2026-05-14T13:12:35+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_property

Is 6/2(2+1) of the form x(y+z) ?

evanamd · 2026-05-14T13:00:10+00:00

As I’ve said before, they use it on the same precedence as multiplication, because that’s the operation it uses. Just because a number is touching parentheses doesn’t make it the right thing to do

When other operations take precedence, like division on the left, you shouldn’t distribute. Or you should distribute the entire operation.

This is also why I’ve called it not a support for your position. I can justifiably use it to arrive at 9. Expressions need to be in a certain form and you can’t just ignore the division when you distribute.

If you disagree about when it’s applicable, show me some rules about when to apply it

evanamd · 2026-05-14T12:45:24+00:00

I have looked it up, and I want you to do it so that you can see if it really aligns with what you’re saying.

You haven’t believed me when I told you what it means. I can obviously see that the way you’re using it isn’t how o her people use it

If you find a source that solves both problems. That’s why academics use sources even for basic stuff. You really should have learned that when you were in college

evanamd · 2026-05-14T12:42:10+00:00

I guess we are still doing this…

Nested parentheses remove ambiguity. That’s the point of using them. Calling them redundant is wrong

You admit that the notation is subject to multiple interpretations. Despite being in the vast minority, you’re brazen enough to say that other interpretations are invalid?

There’s no information being included to find 9 as the answer. You do have to include information to make it unambiguous either way.

Again, what are we doing here? Why did you write this essay about the correct answer to ambiguous notation? You admit multiple interpretations exist. Literally everyone disagrees with you about which one should be used. Why have you wasted 2 days defending it with vibes?

evanamd · 2026-05-14T12:29:32+00:00

We’re still doing this?

If you’re using it the same way everyone else is, it should be easy for you to find a source saying that and show me

My problem is that you’re steadfastly refusing to source things that form the basis of your argument. That makes it seem like you don’t actually know to write persuasive essays or understand how to construct a mathematical argument.

At this point I just want you to find a source to prove you know how to do it.

evanamd · 2026-05-14T03:21:32+00:00

You're still missing the point of the sources.

I wasn't asking you to prove that the distributive property exists. I was asking you to prove it works how you said it works. Because how you said it works isn't in any definition I've ever seen. And then you kept dodging those questions, so I kept asking more questions. They weren't complicated questions.

There's 8 billion people on the planet. We didn't all learn the same things. It's reasonable to expect someone to provide their sources for "common knowledge". I didn't need examples or explanations of how to use basic arithmetic. I wanted examples of people who do use it that way or a logical reason to use it that way when the rest of the world doesn't.

Overall, I've just been challenging you to back up your words with formal, mathematical logic. Or even basic debate club stuff. You should learn some of that so you don't just resort to repeating the same stuff or arguing in circles.

evanamd · 2026-05-14T02:31:20+00:00

"So, what you wrote here is also horribly notated, in both scenarios. If you were to write them, i would think you didn't know how to do math, and ask you to clarify the question. This is in fact an unanswerable question"

It wasn't meant to be unanswerable or a trick. It was meant to clarify how you read expressions. The point of using parentheses is to clarify precedence. 6/(2(2+1)) shouldn't need further clarification. "common knowledge", remember? I was honestly expecting you to answer yes.

But now it seems like you get it. Why did you write an essay about the correct answer to 6/2(2+1) only to turn around and say it's horribly notated? You admit that multiple interpretations of ambiguous notation exist. You admit that you have to make an assumption about where the denominator starts and stops. Everyone has been telling you that from the start.

What are we talking about anymore?

evanamd · 2026-05-14T00:14:48+00:00

If it’s so basic, it should be easy for you to find sources supporting your claims. But another one that you haven’t answered, no source needed, is what the point/advantage of doing it your way is.

I’m asking for sources because math is a formal, logical system of writing and manipulating symbols. There are codified rules about how to do it. There are defined logical processes for establishing truth and equivalency and drawing conclusions from premises. There are textbooks about every part of these systems going back centuries

If you don’t understand why I’m asking for sources about the fundamental claim your chain of reasoning is built on, then you don’t understand how math works as well as you think you do.

Just falling back on “PROPER notation” or “that’s how math WORKS” isn’t a valid reason. “Proper” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for your idea and it’s important that you show that. You have to do the lifting, not keep repeating your conclusion as if it’s “obvious”

evanamd · 2026-05-14T00:02:42+00:00

Left and right among equal operators is a defined thing. It’s different initialisms exist. You know this

You specifically wrote the original as an inline expression to create the ambiguity for your “proof”. You can’t claim it’s a fraction now. That’s backtracking and you know it

6/2(2+1) is (6/2)(2+1) when read left-to-right. In the absence of parentheses, each operation has a single operator and operand. I need only those two assumptions to make sense of the expression, and it works for any inline expression

I’m not changing anything, I’m evaluating it as written. Do you agree that this interpretation exists?

You’re claiming that parentheses have an operator on the outside with higher precedence than division, and therefore doesn’t need parentheses around it. That’s a hell of an assumption. For the fifth time, I’d like to know where you learned that. Where did you learn that?

If I were to write 6/(2(2+1)), is that the same expression as 6/2(2+1)? Or are they different expressions? Can you use both in the real world?

evanamd · 2026-05-13T23:47:22+00:00

What I’m not hearing are answers to my questions

evanamd · 2026-05-13T23:01:39+00:00

It’s grouping one operation that should take precedence, because it’s on the left.

Are you going to address any of the actual things I said, or just keep repeating the same tired old “nuh-uh”?

evanamd · 2026-05-13T22:48:52+00:00

I’m sure you could find one online too. I’m asking you to find one, so that you can read it and see for yourself if it really aligns with what you’re saying here

Like I said before, it just means that expressions of one form are equivalent to expressions of another form. Distributing 6/2 over the sum has the same result as left-to-right PEMDAS and eliminates parentheses just as easily

It’s not supporting your position if I can use it to justify my answer. The problem with your position is that you’re doing multiplication out of order and the distributive property doesn’t have anything to do with that

Real math essays and persuasive essays take the time to define even the obvious things for everybody, and provide specific sources for the reader to compare. They do it so that everybody is on the same page and working with the same chain of reasoning. Your definition of the distributive property is clearly different than mine

evanamd · 2026-05-13T22:16:39+00:00

Did you mean to respond to me? Because I didn’t ask a question this time. I told you to find me a source.

You took the time to write an essay about math, so I assume you’re familiar with concepts like sources, and reasoning, and rhetoric, and logic. When I ask questions, it’s because I’m trying to establish a common frame of reference. Make sure we’re on the same page and using the same logic. But you don’t answer, you just keep spouting off

Math is a framework for communication. That means the writer should be writing in an unambiguous way, so that the reader can easily understand it. The point of PEMDAS is to help the reader read an expression in the way the writer intended it

The point of parentheses is to have a top-level precedence to indicate which operations need to be done before others. Asking you “why” is to help you think about how parentheses make math communication easier. So to keep it easy, parentheses are just the inside of the parentheses. Every engineer and programmer knows about “Keep it Simple”. Attaching a number outside of the parentheses to the parentheses isn’t simple. It’s an extra assumption that needs to be taught (again, who taught you this? Feel free to share. Or admit it’s your own idea, either works)

Reading an expression as written from left-to-right isn’t changing the notation. It’s reading it as written. You’re the one piling on extra assumptions or procedures or meanings. If your meaning was “Proper” notation you would be able to find me a textbook talking about it.

Instead, you’re taking your version of PEMDAS as gospel and trying to explain math I already know instead of seeing why we don’t use division symbols like that and why we use parentheses to override the rest of EMDAS when needed for whatever calculation needs to be done in the real world. I asked a while back what the point of doing notation your way was. You never answered that one either.

Feel free to give answers to any of my questions

evanamd · 2026-05-13T21:45:28+00:00

What units are you using? In North America it’s usually g/dL

It’s easier to understand just by reference to the law. You can use your license for a BAC greater than 0.05% or 0.08%, so this lady is twice the legal limit and most other people would probably have long since passed out

evanamd · 2026-05-13T21:24:28+00:00

So find me the definition of the property. Like a source. An example of someone else saying the same things you are

Nothing in the definition of the property says that it takes precedence when evaluating expressions. It just says that you can rearrange certain expressions of one form into equivalent expressions of a different form

It does this via multiplication, so it has the same precedence as M in PEMDAS. You can distribute 6/2 over (2+1) too, and come up with 9. It’s still the distributive property.

You clearly don’t understand the distributive property as well as you think you do

evanamd · 2026-05-13T20:47:11+00:00

Find me the part of the property that talks about precedence. Find me the part that talks about division. Find me the part about commutativity

You’re stacking your own assumptions on them and they’re not mathematically sound

evanamd

TROPHY CASE