They want it to be that way because they have been taught that way their entire life.

They don't want to change because it would be too much. Math problems would get a different answers at the end if it went the logical way and there is absolutely no problem with that.

They just made up some arbitrary rules that does not belong in math.

You seem to be quite the expert. Why don't you go find a college professor and explain to him exactly why he is wrong and why you are right.

A quick google search will support my claims, any subtraction can be rewritten as an addition of a negative. They are, essentially, the same operation.

I will hereby state that evidence for my claim is conclusive, therefore my claim is correct.

Any further arguments on your part mean you're either a troll or a special kind of stupid.

Why would it be wrong for it to be done in such logical manner?

If someone would need brackets he would use them and count those numbers by themselves. But when a problem have no brackets then there shouldn't be any. It's quite logical.

Right now that is not the case because math likes to fuck things up for us. I do not like that.

Math should be easy, not a fucking riddle on how to do things.

Take a couple college courses in math, see if you keep your opinion.

People who are smarter than you and infinitely better that math think it should be this way, who are you to say they're wrong?

They want it to be that way because they have been taught that way their entire life.

They don't want to change because it would be too much. Math problems would get a different answers at the end if it went the logical way and there is absolutely no problem with that.

They just made up some arbitrary rules that does not belong in math.

You seem to be quite the expert. Why don't you go find a college professor and explain to him exactly why he is wrong and why you are right.

have fun.

Oh god no.. I hate him.. I can't stand him.

Let me rephrase your comment.
"Well I would like to meet these people, I don't particularly like Justin Bieber but I respect others views and that they like but it annoys me when people just take the piss out of a guy when he's making albums and touring and earning shit loads of money and them haters are just sitting at home with not even £1 million to their name while this guy is out on stages touring the world.. I'm sorry but when they are at that stage then they can comment about it to be honest."

Well I would like to meet these people, I don't particularly like Metallica and Slayer but I respect others views and that they like but it annoys me when people just take the piss out of a band when they are making albums and touring and earning shit loads of money and them haters are just sitting at home with not even £1 million to their name while these guys are out on stages touring the world.. I'm sorry but when they are at that stage then they can comment about it to be honest.

I'll keep note of your tremendous respect for Justin Bieber.

Oh god no.. I hate him.. I can't stand him.

Let me rephrase your comment.
"Well I would like to meet these people, I don't particularly like Justin Bieber but I respect others views and that they like but it annoys me when people just take the piss out of a guy when he's making albums and touring and earning shit loads of money and them haters are just sitting at home with not even £1 million to their name while this guy is out on stages touring the world.. I'm sorry but when they are at that stage then they can comment about it to be honest."

Cus i had time.. :P U know the Faroe islands is small

:p

It's true

Why the sudden response? :p

Cus i had time.. :P U know the Faroe islands is small

:p

me neither but if yours is right then ill agree with you. ive just never been proven wrong on the subject but mostly because i havent really talked about this with someone else

meh, ok.

you defined it differently i would agree with you if i defined it that way, but i define it differently so yeah

I'm not sure if your definition can be correct.

me neither but if yours is right then ill agree with you. ive just never been proven wrong on the subject but mostly because i havent really talked about this with someone else

meh, ok.

my definition of being rich is having more than whats necessary(obviously with various layers) to live , so if everyone's getting more then what they need,then everyone's getting richer

Being rich means, essentially, that you have more than other people.
it's not an absolute term, it's a relative one. If you have a car and no one else does, you're rich, if everyone has a car, it means jack shit. It's impossible for everyone to be rich, cause if everyone's rich, no one is.

you defined it differently i would agree with you if i defined it that way, but i define it differently so yeah

I'm not sure if your definition can be correct.

me neither but if yours is right then ill agree with you. ive just never been proven wrong on the subject but mostly because i havent really talked about this with someone else

meh, ok.

the only reason people want to be rich is to improve the quality of their life and to be more comfortable since thats happening to them regardless of their personal money situation it leaves them with the ability to spend their money on other comforts that aren't already given to them in turn giving them more than they would have had if they would have had to pay the aforementioned expenses

That's all true. 10/10

Too bad it's completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.
OP said the poor aren't getting richer, but their quality of life is improving., You said this sentence is contradictory. I believe I proved you wrong. Anything relevant to add?

my definition of being rich is having more than whats necessary(obviously with various layers) to live , so if everyone's getting more then what they need,then everyone's getting richer

Being rich means, essentially, that you have more than other people.
it's not an absolute term, it's a relative one. If you have a car and no one else does, you're rich, if everyone has a car, it means jack shit. It's impossible for everyone to be rich, cause if everyone's rich, no one is.

you defined it differently i would agree with you if i defined it that way, but i define it differently so yeah

I'm not sure if your definition can be correct.

me neither but if yours is right then ill agree with you. ive just never been proven wrong on the subject but mostly because i havent really talked about this with someone else

meh, ok.

Well let it be boss man guy, let it be I Chuck the ass!

well there are two kinds of rich i suppose i thought he was talking about the material one if hes talking about the family/friends one then yes im wrong

No. No.
NO.
What he's saying is perfectly possible. Poor people aren't getting any richer, a hobo without any possessions out on the street today and a hobo with no possessions in the middle ages are both equally poor. Yet the hobo out on the street today is STILL better off, because of modern technology. If the hobo can't find his ass in the dark and wants to scratch it, he can use streetlights, the medieval hobo would be stuck with an itchy butt. The analogy may be somewhat ridiculous but it holds up.
OP also meant that since technology is getting cheaper it becomes gradually more accessible to the poor. So the quality of their lives is improving, they gain more comfort, but they don't get richer.

the only reason people want to be rich is to improve the quality of their life and to be more comfortable since thats happening to them regardless of their personal money situation it leaves them with the ability to spend their money on other comforts that aren't already given to them in turn giving them more than they would have had if they would have had to pay the aforementioned expenses

That's all true. 10/10

Too bad it's completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.
OP said the poor aren't getting richer, but their quality of life is improving., You said this sentence is contradictory. I believe I proved you wrong. Anything relevant to add?

my definition of being rich is having more than whats necessary(obviously with various layers) to live , so if everyone's getting more then what they need,then everyone's getting richer

Being rich means, essentially, that you have more than other people.
it's not an absolute term, it's a relative one. If you have a car and no one else does, you're rich, if everyone has a car, it means jack shit. It's impossible for everyone to be rich, cause if everyone's rich, no one is.

you defined it differently i would agree with you if i defined it that way, but i define it differently so yeah

I'm not sure if your definition can be correct.

me neither but if yours is right then ill agree with you. ive just never been proven wrong on the subject but mostly because i havent really talked about this with someone else

meh, ok.