Comment on I dunno

• SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Exponents come after brackets

  That’s right

  so I’m curious to see how you solve that with your logic

  Ummm, you do the brackets and then the exponent. Not sure what you find unclear about that

  It has an obvious correct solution

  The one where you do the brackets before the exponent

  which is 128

  Nope! You can only get that by doing the exponent before the brackets, which is against the order of operations rules. Or did you wrongly add a multiply sign before the brackets - that also yields a different answer

  you need to distribute in the brackets step

  That’s right, so why did you do the exponent first?

  which comes before exponents,

  That’s right. So why did you do the exponent first?

  so let’s see what you do with it

  Brackets before exponents, as already established 🙄

  source

  • moriquende@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Ok bro now find an expression solver that verifies your solution. I tried Wolfram Alpha, Google, and others, and they all return 128. So either you’re wrong, or all people who make these tools professionally are wrong. Not trying to be offensive, but I know where I’m putting my money.

    source

    • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I tried Wolfram Alpha, Google, and others, and they all return 128

      Yep, all known to give wrong order of operations answers

      So either you’re wrong

      Well, it’s not me, so…

      all people who make these tools professionally are wrong

      That’s right. Welcome to programmers writing Maths apps without checking that they have their Maths right first. BTW, in some cases it’s as bad as one of their calculators saying 2+3x4=20! 😂

      To be clear, the reason you’re wrong is because distribution is not part of the brackets step

      To be clear, I am correct, because Distribution is part of the Brackets step, as we have already established…

      Brackets are solved before exponents,

      Yes

      resulting in 2(8)²

      No, you haven’t finished solving the Brackets yet, which you must do before proceeding…

      Image

      Remove the brackets and then it’s 2*8²

      Nope! We have already established that you cannot remove the brackets if you haven’t Distributed yet…

      Image

      So what we actually get is…

      2(8)²=(2x8)²=16²

      and now that I have removed the Brackets, I can now do the exponent,

      16²=256

      Welcome to you finding the answer to 2x(3+5)² - where the 2 is separate to the brackets, separated from them by the multiply sign - rather than 2(3+5)², which has no multiply sign, and therefore the 2 must be Distributed

      source

      • moriquende@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Lmao citing yourself and assuming you’re correct and smarter than everyone who programs solvers, even those who are known to be respectable and used extensively in academia. Nothing’s been established cause you’ve cited sources that don’t support your argument, and repeating them again and again won’t make it different. Good day bro, continuing this is useless.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        says person who can’t tell the difference between a(b+c) and a(bc)

        Then you’re just a crank who lies to thirteen-year-olds about some bullshit you made up.

        Both 2(8+0)^2^ and 2(8*1)^2^ simplify to 2(8)^2^. They can’t get different answers.

        Nobody but you has this problem. Real math doesn’t work differently based on how you got there.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        therefore the 2 must be Distributed

        Like how the 5 in the first image isn’t?

        source

        • -> View More Comments