Comment on I dunno
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 23 hours agoYou 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…
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 😂
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…
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
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?SmartmanApps@programming.dev 14 hours ago
Please find a Maths textbook that backs that up as being the correct answer. i.e. Exponents before Brackets. Should be easy, no? 🤣
moriquende@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Nobody has argued exponents should go before brackets.
I’m saying distribution being mandatory is an invented rule from your part.
No wonder you can’t produce such a simple request. I thought you had calculators that work “correctly”?
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 8 hours ago
You did! 😂 You said 2(3+5)²=2(8)²=2(64), which is doing the Exponent when there are still unsolved Brackets 😂
You still haven’t explained how it’s in 19th Century textbooks if I “made it up”! 😂
Image
Image
If you don’t remember Roman Numerals either, that’s 1898
says person who still hasn’t produced a single textbook that supports anything that they say, and it’s such a simple request 😂