SmartmanApps
@SmartmanApps@programming.dev
- Comment on I dunno 7 hours ago:
Do you teach classes like this? “That’s not a product, it’s a multiplication”
Yep! And if you read more than 2 sentences out of the textbook you would know why 🙄
those are the same thing.
Says person who only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter 🙄
Shouldn’t you, as a teacher, be explaining the difference, if you say there is one?
Yep, and it’s right there in the textbook! 🙄
I’m starting to believe you don’t think they’re is one
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?? 😂
You could argue that “product” refers to the result of the multiplication rather than the operation
Yep by definition!
there’s no sense in which the formula “a × b” does not refer to the result of multiplying a and b
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
you don’t bother to even make such an argument
Says someone revealing that they haven’t read a word I’ve said 🙄
you’re not actuality smart enough to understand the words you’re using
says someone who has just proven they haven’t been reading them 🙄
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that you never provide any reference to your textbooks to back up these strange interpretations
Yes I did, and you only read 2 sentences out of it 😂
Where in your textbook does it say explicitly that ab is not a multiplication
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… 🙄
It doesn’t, does it?
The page that you only read one sentence from 🙄
You’re keen to cite textbooks any time you can, but here you can’t
I already did and you only read 2 sentences out of it 🙄
You complain that people don’t read enough of the textbook, yet they read more than you ever refer to
says person who has repeatedly proven they’ve only read 2 sentences 🙄
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
And I pointed out that in fact you got it wrong, and Mr. Hypocrite has failed to admit it 🙄
provide an actual textbook example where any of the disputed claims you make are explicitly made
Same one I already told you and you only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter
there should be some textbook somewhere which says that mathematics would not work with different orders of operations
It’s easy enough to prove yourself, like I did. Go ahead and try it out and let me know how you go.
you’ve never found a textbook which says anything like this
No, I was able to prove it myself 🙄
only things like “mathematicians have agreed”
Because it was proven 🙄
where’s your textbook which says that “a × b is not a term”?
Same textbook that you only read 2 sentences from
Where is the textbook that says 5(17) requires distribution?
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
Where’s your textbook which says “ab is a product, not multiplication”?
Same one you only read 2 sentences from
there is a textbook reference saying “ab means the same as a × b”,
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 🙄
so your mental contortions are not more authoritative
Says person who made the mental contortion that “means” means “equals” instead of reading the rest of the page
your ability to interpret maths textbooks is poor
says person who only read 2 sentences out of a whole chapter 🙄
we can have a productive discussion
when you decide to read more than 2 sentences 🙄
My prediction: you’ll present some implicit references
Wrong, as usual
try to argue they mean what you want
says person trying to argue that “means” means “equals” 🙄
- Comment on I dunno 8 hours ago:
Fuck where this started
I’ll take that as an admission that you’re wrong. Thanks for playing
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
P.S. show me where the squared is in…
you know, the actual topic, which you’re trying to avoid because you know you are wrong
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
So when you sneer that rules and notation are different, you don’t know what those words mean
says the actual person who doesn’t know what they mean 😂
when someone says ‘imagine a different notation,’ you literally can’t
Yes, you literally can’t go rewriting all the rules of Maths that we’ve had for centuries just because you randomly want to do something different now that we’ve decided to add Brackets to it 😂 Your whole argument is based on pretending that all the rules of Maths were all written at the same time 🤣🤣🤣
Show me any textbook that gets the answers you insist on
Pick any of them which show a(b+c)=(ab+ac) 🙄
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
Yes we could
No you can’t! 😂
it’s a theoretical different notation
In other words against the rules of Maths that we have, got it
does not break down, if you have to put add explicit brackets to 1/(ab)
But it does breakdown if you treat ab as axb 🙄
if you have to put add explicit brackets to 1/(ab)
We explicitly don’t have to, because brackets not being needed around a single Term is another explicit rule of Maths, 🙄 being the way everything was written before we started using Brackets in Maths. We wrote things like aa/bb without brackets for many centuries. i.e. they were added on after we had already defined all these other rules centuries before
Mathematics does break down when you insist a(b)2 gets an a2 term
No it doesn’t. If you meant ab², then you would just write ab². If you’ve written a(b)², then you mean (axb)²
for certain values of b
Got nothing to do with the values of b
It’s why you’ve had to invent exceptions to your made-up bullshit
says person still ignoring all these textbooks
pretend 2(8)2
There’s no pretending, It’s there in the textbooks
when simplified from 2(5+3)2 versus 2(8*1)2
You know it’s called The Distributive Property of Multiplication over additon, right? And that there’s no such thing as The Distributive Property of Multiplication over Multiplication, right? You’re just rehashing your old rubbish now
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
‘If a+b equals b+a, why is 1/a+b different from 1/b+a?’
Because they’re not identically equal 🙄 Welcome to you almost getting the point
ab means a*b
means, isn’t equal
That’s why 1/ab=1/(a*b)
Nope, it’s because ab==(axb) <== note the brackets duuuhhh!!! 😂
But we could just as easily say 1/ab = (1/a)*b
No you can’t! 😂
because that distinction is only convention
Nope! An actual rule, as found not only in Maths textbooks (see above), but in all textbooks - Physics, Engineering, Chemistry, etc. - they all obey ab==(axb)
None of which excuses your horseshit belief that a(b)2
says person still ignoring all these textbooks
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
You sneered about 1/ab five minutes ago
Yet again, I have no idea what you’re talking about
Troll
says person who can’t back up anything they say about Terms with textbook references 🙄
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
That’s convention for notation
Nope, still rules
not a distinction between a*b and ab
says person who only read 2 sentences out of the book, the book which proves the statement wrong 😂
a*b and ab both being the product of a and b
Nope, only ab is the product, and you would already know that if you had read more than 2 sentences 😂
You have to slap 1/ in front of things and pretend that’s the subject
“identically equal”, which you claimed it means, means it will give the same answer regardless of what’s put in front of it. You claimed it was identical, I proved it wasn’t.
avoid these textbooks telling you
It kills you actually, but you didn’t read any of the parts which prove you are wrong 🙄just cherry pick a couple of sentences out of a whole chapter about order of operations 🙄
They are the same thing. They are one term
Nope! If they were both 1 term then they would give the same answer 🙄
1/ab=1/(axb)=1/(2x3)=1/6
1/axb=1/2x3=3/2=1.5
Welcome to why axb is not listed as a Term on Page 37, which if you had read all the pages up until that point, you would understand why it’s not 1 Term 🙄
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
You poor thing…
You don’t know what Maths textbooks say because you were too poor to go to school? I’m sorry to hear that
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
You can’t keep your own horseshit straight
No idea what you’re talking about, again, I’ve been saying the same thing the whole time
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
You insist they’re not the same. How?
Not difficult, I already did in another post. If a=2 and b=3…
1/ab=1/(axb)=1/(2x3)=1/6
1/axb=1/2x3=3/2=1.5
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
Convention saying 1/a(b+c)2 is 1/(a(b+c)2)
There’s no such convention, given it would violate The Distributive Law 🙄
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
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!) 😂
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
They’re more than equal
They’re not equal at all 🙄
If a=2, b=3…
1/ab=1/(2x3)=1/6
1/axb=1/2x3=3/2=1.5
It’s an identity, which you’d understand
Nope! axb==ab is an identity, which is NOT how it’s written, “illiterate fraud” as per your other comment
if you weren’t lying about being a teacher
says person who is lying about what the textbook says 🙄
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
Illiterate fraud
says person who thinks “means” and “equals” mean the same thing 😂
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
“a X b is written ab and means a times b.”
Notice that it doesn’t say equals, speaking of Illiterate fraud, as per your other comment 🙄
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
So 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 🙄
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
a*b and ab are both the product of a and b,
Nope. Only ab is the product of a and b. axb is Multiplication of 2 terms
As explained by the textbook you chose
If you had read more than 2 sentences of it, you would discover that you cannot use axb to show the product, only ab 🙄
a*b2 is ab2
No it isn’t 😂 1/axb²=b²/a. 1/ab²=1/ab². Welcome to why we teach students about Terms 🙄
No textbook you’re grasping for contains your made-up exception
Law is the word you’re looking for, and I posted dozens of them here in this post which you keep ignoring Mr. Ostrich
They all show what I’m rubbing your nose in. You’re just full of shit.
Nope, they all show you are full of shit Mr. Ostrich. See previous link
- Comment on I dunno 3 days ago:
Multiplying two things makes them one term
You so nearly had it, look “two things”! Yes axb is 2 Terms being Multiplied to make them one 😂
Immediately before the definition you’re now lying about
Nope! Says exactly what I already said, and I have no idea why you think it says otherwise. Now read the next page, which tells you ab is one Term and doesn’t say that axb is 1 Term. 🙄 You’re proven wrong by the very textbook you’re quoting from! 😂
Fuck your non-sequitur
Says person trying to disprove a(b+c)=(ab+ac) by dragging a(bc)²=ab²c² to try and make a false equivalence argument 😂
a(b+c)2 is a*(b+c)2
No it isn’t! 😂 The first is one term, the second is two terms
for example - these four math textbooks.
Says Mr. Ostrich, still ignoring the dozens of textbooks I posted saying a(b+c)=(ab+ac)
No textbook will ever say it produces an a2 term
No, it produces an ab term and an ac term, a(b+c)=(ab+ac) 🙄
You made it up. You’re just full of shit
Says Mr. Ostrich, now completely full of shit, still ignoring the dozens of textbooks I posted, including ones written before I was even born
- Comment on I dunno 3 days ago:
The result of a multiplication operation is called a product
Now you’re getting it - axb=ab. axb is Multiplication of 2 Terms, ab is the single Product. It’s the reason that 8/2(1+3) and 8/2x(1+3) give different answers 🙄
Show me one textbook where a(b+c)2 gets an a2 term
I already gave you many that tell you a(b+c)=(ab+ac) Mr. Ostrich - which part of a(b+c)=(ab+ac) are you having trouble understanding?
- Comment on I dunno 4 days ago:
b*c is the product of b and c
Nope! bc is the product of b and c - it’s right there in the textbook! 😂
that say you’re full of shit.
Says person yet again who has proven they are full of shit about the definition of Terms 😂
- Comment on I dunno 4 days ago:
b*c is one term
No it isn’t! 😂
say you’re full of shit.
says person who just proved they’re full of shit about what constitutes a Term 😂
- Comment on I dunno 4 days ago:
Every textbook with an answer key says you’re full of shit
Says person who can’t find a Maths textbook that says a(bxc)=(abxac) 🙄
being wrong on purpose is the point
I’m gonna presume that’s why you keep claiming a(bxc)=(abxac) 🙄
The answer in either case is shut the fuck up
says person still not doing that 😂
2(n)2 is 2n2
No it isn’t! 😂 2xn² is
Anything else is an inane complication nobody else believes in or uses or needs
Except for authors of Maths textbooks 😂
- Comment on I dunno 4 days ago:
If you can simplify before distributing - and the PDFs you spam say you can
They say you can do that when there is Addition or Subtraction inside the Brackets. They also say you cannot Distribute over Multiplication, at all
then there is no difference
There is no difference between Addition and Multiplication?? 😂
You made it the fuck up
And yet, there it is in textbooks that were written before I was even born 😂
2(n)2 is 2n2 whether n=a+b or n=a*b=ab
Nope! a(b+c)=(ab+ac). a(bxc)=abc
If you want to square the 2, that’s (2n)2.
…or 2²xn², or 2(½n+½n)²
It’s not about the multiply sign, or grouping, or division
Yes it is! 😂 If there’s a Multiply or a Divide, you cannot Distribute.
You fooled yourself into saying 2=1
Not me! 😂
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
Then you’re just a crank who lies to thirteen-year-olds about some bullshit you made up.
Weird then that’s in in Maths textbooks isn’t it 😂
Both 2(8+0)2 and 2(8*1)2
Says another person who can’t tell the difference between a(b+c) and a(bc) 🙄
Nobody but you has this problem
Knowing how to read Maths textbooks is a problem?? 😂 I can assure you that all my students have this same “problem”
Real math doesn’t work differently based on how you got there
It does if you have different expressions, such as 8/2(1+3) and 8/2x(1+3)
B 8/2(1+3)=8/(2+6)=8/8 E DM 8/8=1 AS
B 8/2x(1+3)=8/2x4 E DM 8/2x4=4x4=16 AS
Different expressions, different order of evaluation, same rules of Maths (both following BEDMAS here) resulting in the different evaluations of the different expressions 🙄
- Comment on I dunno 2 weeks ago:
We can see the Acrobat window in those scans you found online.
…and the ones that came with the textbook, and not in the photo’s 😂
You think 2(8)2 is 128 if that’s simplified from 2(8+0)2… but 256 if it’s simplified from 2(8*1)2. In short: no
says person who can’t tell the difference between a(b+c) and a(bc) 😂
I think you’re about fifteen years old. You had an unpleasant teacher who belittled you, and you’ve identified with the aggressor. Your whole online persona is posturing to always be smarterer than everybody else
#EveryAccusationIsAConfession
Wolfram fucking Alpha is wrong about basic algebra
Which is an established fact
Faced with a contradiction that requires you to insist (8*1) ≠ (8+0)
again says person who can’t tell the difference between a(b+c) and a(bc) 😂
The word you should be looking for is, “oops.”
yet again says person who can’t tell the difference between a(b+c) and a(bc) 😂
- Comment on I dunno 2 weeks ago:
Don’t move the goalposts
I didn’t. You’re the one who has been desperately trying to make a False Equivalence argument between a(b+c) and a(bc)² 🙄
I’ve posted textbooks showing that “solving brackets” only applies to the inside,
No you haven’t. A college refresher isn’t a Maths textbook, and I already pointed out to you that they don’t mention The Distributive Law at all, unlike, you know, high school Maths textbooks 🙄
distribution is part of multiplication
And the high school Maths textbooks I posted prove you are wrong about that 🙄
and optional
And the high school Maths textbooks I posted prove you are wrong about that too, 🙄 unless you think “optional” is a valid interpretation of what “must” means 😂
You’ve said yourself your magic rule is taught in highschool,
Yep
so a refresher course in college would never ignore it
And yet you proved that they did in fact forget about it 🙄
Now instead of giving weak excuses
they say to person who has been backed up by every textbook they posted so far 😂
provide your part of the proof.
Just scroll back dude - they’re all still there, like here for example.
And I’m not talking about multiplication
Well that’ll be a nice change then 😂
I want to see anywhere where a distribution is given precedence over an exponent
Because you are hell bent on making a False Equivalence argument between a(b+c) and a(bc)². I don’t care dude. there is no exponent in the meme. I’ll take that as an admission that you are wrong about a(b+c) then.
- Comment on I dunno 2 weeks ago:
PDFs found online
Nope! If you looked more carefully you’ll find some of them are photo’s and scans.
From which you are ignoring counterexamples using a(b+c)n. Fraud
says the actual fraud who keeps ignoring that there is no exponent in a(b+c) 😂
Go ahead and tell me how you would explain what 3(x+y) means without referring to Multiplication?
Your own spammed screenshots say 3 gets multiplied
So in other words, you weren’t able to. Also, it doesn’t say that - well done on missing the point for a third time in a row 😂
There is no special case
So you think 2(3x4x5)=(2x3x2x4x2x5) is totally fine? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA 😂😂😂
You made it up
Weird then that it’s in Maths textbooks isn’t it, that 2(3x4x5) is in fact only equal to 2(60)? 😂
does it just mean 8?
says person showing they don’t know the difference in meaning between “means” and “equals” 😂
so 2(8+0)2 is the same as 2(8)2
Yep.
The latter is the next step in simplifying the former
Yep.
You’ve admitted simplifying first is valid
Yep.
when your nose was rubbed in your own found PDFs doing exactly that
Nope! When you finally discovered that they were both valid, even though only a couple of textbooks I posted specifically said to Distribute first. We in fact teach students to simplify before Distributing - less working out, less mistakes with signs.
You don’t have an opinion
That’s right, just facts, as per Maths textbooks 😂
You make no claim, anymore
a(b+c)=(ab+ac), same thing I’ve been saying the whole time
All you have left are derision and emojis
and facts
You’ve admitted 2(8*1)2 means 2(8)(8)
Nope! Never said anything of the sort, liar. I have said the whole time that Multiplication is a special case, to which you claimed there was no special case.
insist that’s different from 2(8)2 because…
No Multiplication. It’s not complicated 🙄
You cannot explain it even now
I already did. Not my fault you don’t understand the difference between Addition and Multiplication 😂
- Comment on I dunno 2 weeks ago:
Your bullshit hit max comment depth.
That’s hilarious that you’re calling textbooks “bullshit” 🤣🤣🤣 BTW there’s nothing preventing you from addressing comments made in a different post to the one you’re replying to, 🙄 and yet, yet again, you didn’t. Did you work out yet why we don’t write (a+b)c? It’s all in the post you’re avoiding.
So when you said 2(8)2 is 256, you were wrong
Nope. 2(8*1)² has a Multiplication inside the Brackets, so The Distributive Law does not apply, 2(8)² doesn’t have Multiplication in it, so The Distributive Law does apply. As I’ve already said repeatedly, if you wanted 2x8², then you could’ve just written 2x8². If you’ve written 2(8) rather then 2x8, then you are saying this is a Product, not a Multiplication.
Otherwise - walk me through how 2(8*1)2, 2(8+0)2, and 2(8)2 aren’t equal, alleged math teacher.
I already did multiple times. The first one has Multiplication in it, the other two don’t. Multiplication (and Division) is the special case where The Distributive Law does not apply, because you cannot Distribute over Multiplication, only Addition (and Subtraction)
alleged math teacher.
who mysteriously owns dozens of Maths textbooks, many of which quoted in the post you’re avoiding 😂
None of them have said a(b+c)=ax(b+c)
“3(x+y) means 3*(x+y).”
Yep, doesn’t say equals, exactly as I said 🙄 Congratulations on missing the point a second time in a row. You wanna go for three?
“It depends on what the definition of is, is,”
You think “means” and “equals” are the same word?? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 🤣🤣🤣 You know the language has to get dumbed down to Year 7 level, right? And you’re still missing the point, right? 😂 Go ahead and tell me how you would explain what 3(x+y) means without referring to Multiplication? I’ll wait. BTW I’ll point out yet again That the questions on Page 282, answers on Page 577, prove I am the one interpreting this right. Maths teacher understands Maths textbook language better than someone who isn’t a Maths teacher. Who woulda thought?? 😂
says someone definitely not trapped in a contradiction
Yep, I’m definitely not trapped in a contradiction. 🤣🤣🤣 Look at the questions on Page 282, answers on Page 577, and then ask yourself what you think they meant when they said means, 😂and not equals. There is definitely a specific reason they did not say equals
- Comment on I dunno 2 weeks ago:
Firstly, it’s hilarious that you’ve gone back to a previous comment, thus ignoring the dozen textbook references I posted 😂
That would mean 2(8*1)2 is 128
That’s right, because we don’t Distribute over Multiplication (and Division), only Addition and Subtraction (it’s right there in the Property’s name - The Distributive Property of Multiplication over Addition). Welcome to you proving why a(bc)² is a special case 😂 I’ve been telling you this whole time that a(b+c) and a(bc) aren’t the same, and you finally stumbled on why they aren’t the same 😂
You are the one saying it’s not 2a2b2,
No I’m not. I never said that, liar. I’ve been telling you the whole time that it is a special case 🙄 (upon which you claimed there was no special case)
because you think it’s 22a2b2,
No I don’t. That’s why you can’t quote me ever saying that 🙄
exponents are where you are blatantly full of shit
and there are no exponents in a(b+c) and all this stuff about exponents is you being blatantly full of shit 🙄
Source: your ass.
No, this meme
Notice that there are no exponents? 😂
Every published example disagrees
says person who came back to this post to avoid this post which is full of published examples that agree with me - weird that 😂
that up-to-date Maths textbook must be wrong
And I also pointed out why that was wrong here. i.e. the post that you have avoided replying to 😂
You alone are correct on this accursed Earth
No, all textbooks as well, except those which are using the old-fashioned and wrong syntax of (a+b)c, not to mention most calculators as well (only Texas Instruments is still doing it wrongly).
Page 31 of the PDF… right
Before the pages I already posted in the post that you are avoiding replying to 😂
where you’ve dishonestly twisted the “expanding brackets” text. Next page: “3(x+y) means 3*(x+y).”
means not equals, Mr. Person Who Is Actually Dishonestly Twisting The Words, as proven by the exercises on Page 282, answers on Page 577, which are also in the post that you are avoiding replying to 😂
Page 129 of that PDF, exercise 5, question 14: simplify 2(e4)2. The answer on PDF page 414 is 2e8
That’s right
Your bullshit would say 4e8.
Nope. Been telling you the whole time that is a special case, upon which you claimed there was no such special case 😂
if you somehow need further proof of how this actually works
No, I don’t, it’s still a False Equivalence argument 🙄 But if you wanna waste your time on an irrelevant point (which you seem determined to do), go ahead, don’t let me stop you, but that’s an admission that you are wrong about a(b+c)
Damn dude, that’s five textbooks you chose saying you’re full of shit
Nope! None of them have said a(b+c)=ax(b+c), they have all said a(b+c)=(ab+ac), which is why you’re avoiding replying to the post of mine which quotes them all 🙄
