Comment

Comment on I dunno

<- View Parent

SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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

Sort:hotnew top

moriquende@lemmy.world ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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
    SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
    
    Lmao citing yourself
    
    Nope! I cite Maths textbooks here, here, here, here, here, here, here, a calculator here, need I go on? 🙄 There’s plenty more of them
    
    assuming you’re correct and smarter than everyone who programs solvers,
    
    That’s hilarious that you think random programmers know more about Maths than a Maths professional 😂
    
    even those who are known to be respectable and used extensively in academia
    
    As I already stated, everyone knows the complete opposite of that about them. It’s hilarious that you’re trying to prop up places that give both right and wrong answers to the exact same expression as somehow being respectable. 😂 And you’ll see at the end of that thread - if you decide to read it this time - the poof that academia does not use it (because they know it spits out random answers)
    
    Nothing’s been established cause you’ve cited sources that don’t support your argument
    
    BWAHAHAHAAH! Like?? 😂
    
    repeating them again and again won’t make it different.
    
    That’s right, the Maths textbooks are still as correct about it as the first time I cited them.
    
    continuing this is useless
    
    Well it is when you don’t bother reading the links, which you’ve just proven is the case
    
    source
  - mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    therefore the 2 must be Distributed
    
    Like how the 5 in the first image isn’t?
    
    source
    SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
    
    Like how the 5 in the first image isn’t?
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And how exactly do you think they got from 5(17) to 85 without distributing?? 🤣 Spoiler alert, this is what they actually did…
    
    5(17)=(5x17)=85
    
    They do that throughout the book, because they think it’s so trivial to get from 5(17) to 85, that if you don’t know how to do it without writing (5x17) first, then you have deeper problems than just not knowing how to Distribute 😂
    
    source