Comment on I dunno
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 2 days agoSo b * c, which is a product of the variables b and c
Nope. bc is the product of b and c. bxc is Multiplication of the 2 Terms b and c.
according to this textbook
Says person who clearly didn’t read more than 2 sentences out of it 🙄
none of the examples on this particular page feature the multiplication symbol ×
and why do you think that is? Do explain. We’re all waiting 😂 Spoiler alert: if you had read more than 2 sentences you would know why
That means that the expression bc is just another way of writing b×c;
No it doesn’t. it means bxc is Multiplication, and bc is the product 🙄 Again you would’ve already known this is you had read more than 2 sentences of the book.
it is treated the same other than requiring fewer strokes of the pen
No it isn’t, and again you would already know this if you had read more than 2 sentences. If a=2 and b=3, then…
1/ab=1/(2x3)=1/6
1/axb=1/2x3=3/2
this is just a custom
Nope, an actual rule of Maths. If you meant 1/axb, but wrote 1/ab, you’ve gonna get a different answer 🙄
That should clear up your confusion in interpreting this textbook
says person who only read 2 sentences out of it 🙄
though really, the language is clear:
It sure is when the read the rest of the page 🙄
you don’t dispute that b×c - or b * c - are products, do you
What don’t you understand about only ab is the product of a and b?
Elsewhere in this thread you are clearly confused about what brackets mean
Not me, must be you! 😂
They are explained on page 20 of your textbook, where it says that you evaluate the expression inside the (innermost) brackets before doing anything else.
Until all brackets have been removed. on the very next page. 🙄 See what happens when you read more than 2 sentences out of a textbook? Who would’ve thought you need to read more than 2 sentences! 😂
the “distributive law” is not mentioned, because the distributive law has nothing to do with brackets
And yet, right there on Page 21, they Distribute in the last step of removing Brackets, 🙄 5(17)=85, and throughout the whole rest of the book they write Products in that form, a(b) (or just ab as the case may be).
is not an operation
Brackets aren’t an operator, they are grouping symbols, and solving grouping symbols is done in the first 2 steps of order of operations, then we solve the operators.
Thus the expression 3 × (2 + 4) can be evaluated by first performing the summation inside the brackets to get 3 × 6 and then the product to get 1
3x6 isn’t a Product, it’s a Multiplication, done in the Multiplication step of order of operations.
The textbook then says that it is customary to omit the multiplication symbol and instead write 3(2+4)
It says you omit the multiplication sign if it’s a Product, and 3x6 is not a Product. I’m not sure how many times you need to be told that 🙄
again indicating that these expressions are merely different ways of writing the same thing
Nope, completely different giving different answers
1/3x(2+4)=1/3x6=6/3=2
1/3(2+4)=1/3(6)=1/18
You have suggested that you must evaluate this as (2a+2b)² because you must “do brackets first”
Yep
this is not what “doing brackets” means.
Yes it is! 😂
Not what is outside the brackets.
Yes it is! 😂 Until all Brackets have been removed, which they can’t be if you haven’t Distributed yet. Again, last step of the working out…
Distributing 2 over a+b is not “doing brackets”;
Yes it is! 😂 Until all Brackets have been removed
it is multiplication and comes afterwards
Nope, it’s Distribution, done in the Brackets step, before doing anything else, as per Page 21
following your textbook’s instruction to do what is inside the brackets first, this is equal to 2(4)²
Which, when you finish doing the brackets, is 8²
The next highest-priority operation is the exponent
After you have finished the Brackets 🙄
giving us 2×16
Nope. Giving us 8²=64
we now must write the × because it is an expression purely in numerals
Nope! If you write it at all, which you don’t actually need to (the textbook never does), then you write (2x4)², per The Distributive Law, where you cannot remove the brackets if you haven’t Distributed yet. There’s no such rule as the one you just made up
The fact that these two answers are different is because
You disobeyed The Distributive Law in the second case, and the fact that you got a different answer should’ve been a clue to you that you did it wrong 🙄
what it means to “do brackets” and the distributive law are wrong
No, that would be your understanding is wrong, the person who only read 2 sentences 🙄 I’m not sure what you think the rest of the chapter is about.
Since I’m working off the textbook you gave
Says person who only read 2 sentences out of it 🙄
I referred liberally to things in that textbook
Yep, ignoring all the parts that prove you are wrong 🙄
I’m sure if you still disagree you will be able to back up your interpretations with reference to it
Exact same reference! 😂
it does rather seem like this rule is one established not by the fundamental laws of mathematics but by agreement as they say
You know Mathematicians tend to agree when something has been proven, right? 😂
Care to comment?
Yep, read the whole chapter 🙄
none of the examples on this particular page feature the multiplication symbol ×
and why do you think that is?
“When a product involves a variable, it is customary to omit the symbol X of multiplication. Thus, 3 X n is written 3n and means three times n, and a X b is written ab and means a times b.”
Illiterate fraud.
Illiterate fraud
says person who thinks “means” and “equals” mean the same thing 😂
By all means, humiliate yourself by splitting that hair.
By all means, humiliate yourself by splitting that hair
I’ll take that as an admission that you’re wrong then, given you can’t defend your wrong interpretation of it (which you would know is wrong if you had read more than 1 paragraph of the book!) 😂
FishFace@piefed.social 1 day ago
Do you teach classes like this? “That’s not a product, it’s a multiplication” – those are the same thing. Shouldn’t you, as a teacher, be explaining the difference? I’m starting to believe you don’t think they’re is one, but are just using words to be annoying. Or maybe you don’t explain because you don’t know.
You could argue that “product” refers to the result of the multiplication rather than the operation, but there’s no sense in which the formula “a × b” does not refer to the result of multiplying a and b.
Of course, you don’t bother to even make such an argument because either that would make it easier to see your trolling for what it is, or you’re not actuality smart enough to understand the words you’re using.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that you never provide any reference to your textbooks to back up these strange interpretations. Where in your textbook does it say explicitly that ab is not a multiplication, or that a multiplication is different from a product in any substantive sense, eh? It doesn’t, does it? You’re keen to cite textbooks any time you can, but here you can’t. You complain that people don’t read enough of the textbook, yet they read more than you ever refer to.
In the other thread I said I wouldn’t continue unless you demonstrated your good faith by admitting to a simple verifiable fact that you got wrong. Here’s another option: provide an actual textbook example where any of the disputed claims you make are explicitly made. For example, there should be some textbook somewhere which says that mathematics would not work with different orders of operations - you’ve never found a textbook which says anything like this, only things like “mathematicians have agreed” (and by the way, hilarious that you commit the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent on that one).
Likewise with your idea of what constitutes a term, where’s your textbook which says that “a × b is not a term”? Where is the textbook that says 5(17) requires distribution? (All references you have given are that distribution relates multiplication and addition, but there’s no addition) Where’s your textbook which says “ab is a product, not multiplication”? Where’s a citation saying “product is not the same as multiplication and here’s how”? Because there is a textbook reference saying “ab means the same as a × b”, so your mental contortions are not more authoritative.
Find any one of these - explicitly, not implicitly, (because your ability to interpret maths textbooks is poor) and we can have a productive discussion, otherwise we cannot.
My prediction: you’ll present some implicit references and try to argue they mean what you want. In that case, my reply is already prepared 😁
SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 day ago
Yep! And if you read more than 2 sentences out of the textbook you would know why 🙄
Says person who only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter 🙄
Yep, and it’s right there in the textbook! 🙄
So you think if a=2 and b=3, then…
1/ab=1/(2x3)=1/6
1/axb=1/2x3=3/2
Are somehow the same answer?? 😂 Which one is it then? 1/6 or 3/2?? 😂
Yep by definition!
There’s no sense in which it does refer to the result you mean. The result of axb is ab. If a=2, b=3, axb=ab. 2x3=6, axb=2x3, ab=6
Says someone revealing that they haven’t read a word I’ve said 🙄
says someone who has just proven they haven’t been reading them 🙄
Yes I did, and you only read 2 sentences out of it 😂
Read on dude, read on, like I have been telling you the whole time. Oh wait, that would prove you were wrong. Oh, I wonder why you haven’t read it… 🙄
The page that you only read one sentence from 🙄
I already did and you only read 2 sentences out of it 🙄
says person who has repeatedly proven they’ve only read 2 sentences 🙄
And I pointed out that in fact you got it wrong, and Mr. Hypocrite has failed to admit it 🙄
Same one I already told you and you only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter
It’s easy enough to prove yourself, like I did. Go ahead and try it out and let me know how you go.
No, I was able to prove it myself 🙄
Because it was proven 🙄
Same textbook that you only read 2 sentences from
It tells you tight there on the same page that you must remove all brackets, 🙄 which you also haven’t admitted to being wrong about yet, surprise, surprise, surprise
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Same one you only read 2 sentences from
And you stopped reading at that point didn’t even finish the page, never mind the chapter 🙄 Just started making false claims (contradicted by same textbook) that “means” means “equals”, instead of realising they have explicitly not said equals 🙄
Says person who made the mental contortion that “means” means “equals” instead of reading the rest of the page
says person who only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter 🙄
when you decide to read more than 2 sentences 🙄
Wrong, as usual
says person trying to argue that “means” means “equals” 🙄
FishFace@piefed.social 1 day ago
It’s amazing that you think these are explicit references. Notice how the text never says “you MUST use the distributive law”? It always says some variation of “*in order to simplify*, you must…”?
No, you don’t notice, because you’re blind, and don’t understand what distributivity actually is.
You also got me confused with someone else trying to explain in short words how you’re wrong, but that won’t be a problem now you demonstrated such abject failure to hold a productive discussion - bye.
mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
“a X b is written ab.” Modern Algebra: Structure And Method, page 36.