Comment

Comment on I dunno

<- View Parent

SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

The P in PEMDAS means to solve everything within parentheses first

and without a(b+c)=(ab+ac), now solve (ab+ac)

there is no “distribution” step or rule

It’s a LAW of Maths actually, The Distributive Law.

Image

that says multiplying without a visible operator

It’s not “Multiplying”, it’s Distributing, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)

So yes, 36 is valid here

No it isn’t. To get 36 you have disobeyed The Distributive Law, thus it is a wrong answer

It’s mostly because

people like you try to gaslight others that there’s no such thing as The Distributive Law

source

Sort:hotnew top

Feathercrown@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Are you under the impression that atomizing your opponents statements and making a comment about each part individually without addressing the actual point (how those facts fit together) is a good debate tactic? Because it seems like all you’ve done is confuse yourself about what I was saying and make arguments that don’t address it.

source
- SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  addressing the actual point (how those facts fit together)
  
  I did address the actual point - see Maths textbooks
  
  all you’ve done is confuse yourself
  
  I’m not confused at all. I’m the one who knows the difference between Distribution and Multiplication.
  
  what I was saying
  
  You lied about there being no such thing as “the Distribution step” (Brackets), proven wrong by the textbooks
  
  make arguments that don’t address it.
  
  Textbooks talking about The Distributive Law totally addresses your lie that no such step exists.
  
  Never mind that some of those micro-rebuttals aren’t even correct
  
  You think Maths textbooks aren’t correct?? 😂
  
  source
  - Feathercrown@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    I have said why this style of debate is bad in greater detail here: lemmy.world/post/39377635/21030374
    
    But to make a pointless effort to address your actual point, yes distribution exists, no it is not a step in PE(MD)(AS). Again, you have not understood my point because you categorically fail to engage with any argument. I don’t think you even understand what it means to do so. I will not respond further to either thread.
    
    source
    SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    
    I have said why this style of debate is bad in greater detail here: lemmy.world/post/39377635/21030374
    
    Which I debunked here
    
    no it is not a step in PE(MD)(AS)
    
    So… you’re saying the “P” step in PEMDAS isn’t a step in PEMDAS?? This is hilarious given you were just talking about contradictions 😂
    
    Again, you have not understood my point
    
    Maybe because saying the “P” step in PEMDAS isn’t a step in PEMDAS makes no sense at all 😂
    
    you categorically fail to engage with any argument.
    
    No, I comprehensively debunked all of you points and deflections. 😂
    
    I don’t think you even understand what it means to do so
    
    says person who keeps avoiding the textbook screenshots and worked examples proving them wrong
    
    I will not respond further to either thread
    
    Yay! Don’t let the door hit you on the way out 😂
    
    source
    -> View More Comments