Comment on I dunno

• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  The first textbook only gets 5(17) by not doing what the second textbook says to do with 5(3+14).

  First image says ‘always simplify inside,’ and shows that.

  Second image says ‘everything inside must be multiplied,’ and shows that.

  You’re such an incompetent troll that you proved yourself wrong within the same post.

  source

  • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    The first textbook only gets 5(17) by not doing what the second textbook says to do with 5(3+14)

    Because the first textbook is illustrating do brackets from the inside out, which the second textbook isn’t doing (it only has one set of brackets, not nested brackets like the first one). They even tell you that right before the example. They still are both Distributing. You’re also ignoring that they actually wrote 5[3+(14)], so they are resolving the inner brackets first, exactly as they said they were doing. 🙄 The 5 is outside the outermost brackets, and so they Distribute when they reach the outermost brackets. This is so not complicated - I don’t know why you struggle with it so much 🙄

    First image says ‘always simplify inside,’ and shows that

    And then says to Distribute, and shows that 🙄 “A number next to anything in brackets means the contents of the brackets should be multiplied”.

    Second image says ‘everything inside must be multiplied,’ and shows that

    Yep, that’s right, same as I’ve been telling you the whole time 😂

    You’re such an incompetent troll that you proved yourself wrong within the same post

    Ah, no, you did, again - you even just quoted that the second one also says to Distribute! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 😂 I’ll remember that you just called yourself an incompetent troll going forward. 😂

    source

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      You’ve harassed a dozen people to say only 5*3+5*14 is correct, to the point you think 2(3+5)^2^ isn’t 2*8^2^.

      If you’d stuck to one dogmatic answer you could pretend it’s a pet peeve. But you’ve concisely proven you don’t give a shit - the harassment is the point. Quote, posture, emoji, repeat, when you can’t do algebra right.

      source
    • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I think I know what you’re missing - perhaps intentionally 🙄 - in a(b+c), c can be equal to 0. It can be any number, not just positive and negative, leaving us with a(b)=(axb), which is also what I’ve been saying all along (not sure how you missed it, other than to deliberately ignore it)

      source

      • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        You’ve harassed a dozen people to say only 53+514

        Nope! I’ve said a(b+c)=(ab+ac) is correct.

        to the point you think 2(3+5)2 isn’t 2*82

        You mean I know that, because it disobeys The Distributive Law 🙄 The expression you’re looking for is 2x(3+5)², which is indeed not subject to Distribution, since the 2 is not next to the brackets.

        If you’d stuck to one dogmatic answer

        Instead I’ve stuck to one actual law of Maths, a(b+c)=(ab+ac).

        But you’ve concisely proven

        The Distributive Law, including c=0 🙄 Not sure why you would think c=0 is somehow an exception from a law

        the harassment is the point

        No, the rules of Maths is the point

        when you can’t do algebra right

        Says person who thinks c=0 is somehow an exception that isn’t allowed🙄

        source

        • -> View More Comments