Comment

Comment on I dunno

SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

Here you go

Yep, that’s an old Casio model, Mr. “All modern calculators”, proving yet again that you can’t back up your own statements 😂

Please post a source that gives a different answer to this expression, I’ll wait.

No need to wait - just scroll back through this thread and look at all the sources I already posted 🙄

for big monetized products that’s no longer the case

You know none of the calculators you’re referring to are commercial right? They’re all free to use, and that tells you how much effort was put into them. The only e-calc I’ve ever seen give a correct answer is MathGPT, which is indeed commercial now (I tried it before it went commercial), so we have a commercial e-calc giving the correct answer, and all the free ones giving the wrong answer 😂

Image

I’m in the software industry myself

So am I in case you didn’t notice 😂

you have multiple downvotes in many posts

I’ve never seen more than 2 on any, Mr. Needs To Exaggerate Because Has No Actual Evidence Of Being Right 😂

source

Sort:hotnew top

moriquende@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
You realize a calculator doesn’t need to be a dedicated hardware, right? Windows calculator, MacOS calculator, Android calculator, and all web-based calculators count as well.

You have no clue what you’re talking about. Wolfram Alpha is a commercial product (with a free-tier as is usual nowadays) and uses the same engine as Mathematica, which is used extensively in industry, academic institutions, and government agencies.

None of your sources has exponents in them, and that’s very convenient for your mistake of mixing up juxtaposition and your invented rule.

Btw, ask yourself this as well: why would your invented interpretation of distributive law be necessary at all? It brings no benefit to the table at all. Juxtaposition arguably does, because it allows shorter notation, but your invention doesn’t.

Please find a calculator that gives a result different to 128 for the expression 2(3+5)². You won’t be able to, because it’s the only correct answer. If you don’t post a reproducible example of a solver anywhere coming to a different solution, I’ll consider your argument defeated and ignore further engagement from your part. Have a nice day!

source
- SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  You realize a calculator doesn’t need to be a dedicated hardware, right?
  
  You realise the calculator manufacturers have much more riding on their calculators being correct, right? 😂
  
  Windows calculator, MacOS calculator, Android calculator, and all web-based calculators count as well.
  
  Nope. Programmed by… programmers, who aren’t earning any money from the calculator, and put the corresponding amount of effort into it.
  
  You have no clue what you’re talking about.
  
  says someone who just claimed that e-calcs count as much as actual, buy from a store, calculators 🤣
  
  Alpha is a commercial product (with a free-tier as is usual nowadays)
  
  Also well known to give wrong answers
  
  uses the same engine as Mathematica, which is used extensively in industry, academic institutions
  
  Nope! Academia warns against using it
  
  None of your sources has exponents in them
  
  In other words, you’re admitting to trying to deflect from what’s in Maths textbooks! 😂
  
  that’s very convenient for your mistake of mixing up juxtaposition and your invented rule
  
  It’s the same rule, duh! Here it is in a textbook from more than 100 years ago when everything was still in brackets…
  
  Image
  
  We’ve since then dropped the brackets from Factors which are a single Term. i.e. (a)(b+c) is now a(b+c), and (a)(b) is now ab. BTW would you like to explain how “my invented rule” appears in a textbook from more than 100 years ago? 🤣
  
  Btw, ask yourself this as well: why would your invented interpretation of distributive law be necessary at all?
  
  It’s not invented, it’s required as the reverse rule to Factorising, duh 😂 And I don’t need to ask myself - as usual, all you have to do is look in Maths textbooks for the reason 😂
  
  Image
  
  Image
  
  Image
  
  Image
  
  It brings no benefit to the table at all.
  
  Being able to reverse the process of Factorising brings no benefit to the table?? 🤣
  
  Juxtaposition arguably does
  
  It’s the same thing duh 🤣 ab=(a)(b), a(b+c)=(a)(b+c) notice how they are the same thing, expanding BRACKETS?? 🤣
  
  Maybe you’ve forgotten about FOIL…
  
  Image
  
  Now, think carefully about this, what happens when b=0, and what happens when d=0, you got it yet?? 🤣
  
  because it allows shorter notation
  
  AKA Factorised Terms and Products 😂
  
  your invention doesn’t.
  
  Again, explain how “my invention” appears in textbooks that are more than 100 years old. I’ll wait 🤣
  
  because it’s the only correct answer
  
  Have you noticed yet that everything you think is correct is actually wrong as per Maths textbooks?? 🤣
  
  I’ll consider your argument defeated
  
  says person who has been comprehensively defeated by Maths textbooks and is now trying to deflect away from that 🤣
  
  ignore further engagement from your part
  
  I’ll take that as an admission that you’re wrong then, having been unable to debunk any Maths textbooks. See ya
  
  source
  - moriquende@lemmy.world ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Please find a calculator that gives a result different to 128 for the expression 2(3+5)². Should be easy, no?
    
    source
    SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    Please find a calculator that gives a result different to 128 for the expression 2(3+5)². Should be easy, no?
    
    Please find a Maths textbook that backs that up as being the correct answer. i.e. Exponents before Brackets. Should be easy, no? 🤣
    
    source
    -> View More Comments