Comment on I dunno

• SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨17⁩ ⁨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 ⁨16⁩ ⁨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
  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    therefore the 2 must be Distributed

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

    source