Post #4328565

@bemmesr@mathstodon.xyz @SmartmanApps@dotnet.social In his eyes, the only sources that are relevant are high school textbooks, and only when they agree with him (Lennes' textbook from long ago did not, but nevertheless exists; if you look into his even whackier ideas like that 0.999... ≠ 1, it's very easy to find textbooks that contradict him. Somehow he manages to continue believing.) I mean for goodness sake, this is the guy who makes a poll which proves that an expression is ambiguous (16% of people selected the variant) and still insists it's unambiguous. For him, ambiguity is purely a theoretical concept, not a practical one. He has written that there is no ambiguity between the meaning of "f(x)" (whether it means f×x or the application of the function f to x) because you just need the additional information of whether f is a function. Well, if we have the additional information of how the writer of an expression with mixed multiplication and division intended it to be grouped, sure, that's unambiguous too. BTW on calculators, one thing I never got him to cough to is that for decades most calculators didn't understand order of operations at all. The Casio fx-110 from 1977 is a good example because it was popular and has an example in its manual.