Comment on I dunno
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 3 weeks 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
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.
Then you’re just a crank who lies to thirteen-year-olds about some bullshit you made up.
Weird then that’s in in Maths textbooks isn’t it 😂
Both 2(8+0)2 and 2(8*1)2
Says another person who can’t tell the difference between a(b+c) and a(bc) 🙄
Nobody but you has this problem
Knowing how to read Maths textbooks is a problem?? 😂 I can assure you that all my students have this same “problem”
Real math doesn’t work differently based on how you got there
It does if you have different expressions, such as 8/2(1+3) and 8/2x(1+3)
B 8/2(1+3)=8/(2+6)=8/8 E DM 8/8=1 AS
B 8/2x(1+3)=8/2x4 E DM 8/2x4=4x4=16 AS
Different expressions, different order of evaluation, same rules of Maths (both following BEDMAS here) resulting in the different evaluations of the different expressions 🙄
If you can simplify before distributing - and the PDFs you spam say you can - then there is no difference. You made it the fuck up.
2(n)^2^ is 2n^2^ whether n=a+b or n=a*b=ab. If you want to square the 2, that’s (2n)^2^.
It’s not about the multiply sign, or grouping, or division. You fooled yourself into saying 2=1.
If you can simplify before distributing - and the PDFs you spam say you can
They say you can do that when there is Addition or Subtraction inside the Brackets. They also say you cannot Distribute over Multiplication, at all
then there is no difference
There is no difference between Addition and Multiplication?? 😂
You made it the fuck up
And yet, there it is in textbooks that were written before I was even born 😂
2(n)2 is 2n2 whether n=a+b or n=a*b=ab
Nope! a(b+c)=(ab+ac). a(bxc)=abc
If you want to square the 2, that’s (2n)2.
…or 2²xn², or 2(½n+½n)²
It’s not about the multiply sign, or grouping, or division
Yes it is! 😂 If there’s a Multiply or a Divide, you cannot Distribute.
You fooled yourself into saying 2=1
Not me! 😂
therefore the 2 must be Distributed
Like how the 5 in the first image isn’t?
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 😂
5(17) means they didn’t distribute 5(3+14) into 53+514.
These textbooks unambiguously disagree.
5(17) means they didn’t distribute 5(3+14) into 53+514
That’s right, they Distributed the 5(17) into (5x17), and your point is?
These textbooks unambiguously disagree
With you, yes, and your point is?
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.
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 3 weeks 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
moriquende@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’ve read everything you’ve posted, but the problem is you’re interpreting the texts in such a way that they support your flawed argument, conveniently ignoring what they’re actually saying, such as “if” statements.
Even this textbook that you yourself posted goes against what you’re saying if you just bother to look at it outside of your tunnel vision: Image
Notice something?
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
You’ve read every textbook, and looked at the calculator answer? Yeah nah, you clearly haven’t.
Says person who can’t come up with any textbooks that support their argument. 😂 BTW if you had looked at the calculator, you would’ve seen it does it exactly as I have described - 6/2(1+2)=6/2(3)=6/(2x3)=6/6=1, not, you know, 6/2(1+2)=3(3)=9, which is your flawed argument
Says person ignoring this “if” statement which says you literally must distribute if you want to remove the brackets.
Image
No it doesn’t! 😂
Yes, you ignored the Distribution in the last step 😂 I have no idea what you think is significant about the first 2 steps, other than you were trying to draw attention away from the Distribution in the last step
Image
Here’s another one (different authors) that does the same thing, which you would’ve seen if you had actually read all the textbooks I posted, but they explicitly spell out what they’re doing as they’re doing it…
Image