therefore the 2 must be Distributed
Like how the 5 in the first image isn’t?
Comment on I dunno
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 day agoI 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…
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…
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
mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 22 hours ago
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 5 hours 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 😂
mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 hour ago
5(17) means they didn’t distribute 5(3+14) into 53+514.
These textbooks unambiguously disagree.
moriquende@lemmy.world 22 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.
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 5 hours ago
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
That’s hilarious that you think random programmers know more about Maths than a Maths professional 😂
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)
BWAHAHAHAAH! Like?? 😂
That’s right, the Maths textbooks are still as correct about it as the first time I cited them.
Well it is when you don’t bother reading the links, which you’ve just proven is the case