Comment on I dunno
moriquende@lemmy.world 7 hours agoUnsolved brackets
Solving brackets does not include forced distribution. Juxtaposition means multiplication, and as such, 2(3+5)² is the same as 2*(3+5)², so once the brackets result in 8, they’re solved.
Distribution needs to happen if you want to remove the brackets while there are still multiple terms inside, but it’s still a part of the multiplication. You can’t do it if there is an exponent, which has higher priority.
Your whole argument hangs on the misinterpretation of textbooks. This is what it feels like to argue against Bible fanatics lmao.
Tell you what, provide me a solver that says 2(3+5)² is 256 and you’ve won, it’s so easy no?
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 6 hours ago
Yes it does! 😂
Image
No, a Product is the result of Multiplication. If a=2 and b=3, axb=ab, 2x3=6, axb=2x3, ab=6. 3(x-y) is 1 term, 3x-3y is 2 terms…
Image
No it isn’t. 2(3+5)² is 1 term, 2x(3+5)² is 2 terms
They don’t - you still have an undistributed coefficient, 2(8)
Not until you’ve Distributed and Simplified they aren’t
Image
if you want to remove the brackets, YES, that’s what the Brackets step is for, duh! 😂
As in 2(8)=(2x8) is multiple Terms inside 😂
Nope! The Brackets step, duh 😂 You cannot progress until all Brackets have been removed
Image
It doesn’t have a higher priority than Brackets! 🤣
says person who can’t cite any textbooks that agree with them, wrongly calls Products “Multiplication”, and claimed that I invented a rule that is in an 1898 textbook! 🤣
says the Bible fanatic, who in this case can’t even show me what it says in The Bible (Maths textbooks) that agrees with them 😂
provide me a Maths textbook that says 8/2(1+3)=16 and you’ve won, it’s so easy no? 🤣
And in the meantime, here’s one saying it’s 1, because x(x-1) is a single Term…
Image
Image