SmartmanApps
@SmartmanApps@programming.dev
- Comment on I dunno 5 hours ago:
Solving brackets does not include forced distribution
Yes it does! 😂
Juxtaposition means multiplication,
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…
as such, 2(3+5)² is the same as 2*(3+5)²
No it isn’t. 2(3+5)² is 1 term, 2x(3+5)² is 2 terms
so once the brackets result in 8
They don’t - you still have an undistributed coefficient, 2(8)
they’re solved
Not until you’ve Distributed and Simplified they aren’t
Distribution needs to happen if you want to remove the brackets
if you want to remove the brackets, YES, that’s what the Brackets step is for, duh! 😂
while there are still multiple terms inside
As in 2(8)=(2x8) is multiple Terms inside 😂
it’s still a part of the multiplication
Nope! The Brackets step, duh 😂 You cannot progress until all Brackets have been removed
which has higher priority.
It doesn’t have a higher priority than Brackets! 🤣
Your whole argument hangs on the misinterpretation of textbooks
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! 🤣
This is what it feels like to argue against Bible fanatics
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 solver that says 2(3+5)² is 256 and you’ve won, it’s so easy no?
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…
- Comment on I dunno 8 hours ago:
Nobody has argued exponents should go before brackets
You did! 😂 You said 2(3+5)²=2(8)²=2(64), which is doing the Exponent when there are still unsolved Brackets 😂
I’m saying distribution being mandatory is an invented rule from your part
You still haven’t explained how it’s in 19th Century textbooks if I “made it up”! 😂
If you don’t remember Roman Numerals either, that’s 1898
No wonder you can’t produce such a simple request.
says person who still hasn’t produced a single textbook that supports anything that they say, and it’s such a simple request 😂
- Comment on I dunno 8 hours ago:
So is 3xy
That’s right
That doesn’t mean 3xy2 is 9y2x2.
That’s right. It means 3abb=(3xaxbxb)
The power only applies to the last element
Factor yes, hence the special rule about Brackets and Exponents that only applies in that context
like how (8)22 only squares the 2
It doesn’t do anything, being an invalid syntax to follow brackets immediately with a number. You can do ab, a(b), but not (a)b
not (6ab)(6ab)(6ab)
Yep, as opposed to 6(a+b), which is (6a+6b)
3(x+1)2 for x=-2 is 3, not 9
No it isn’t. See previous point. Do we have an a(b+c), yes we do. Do we have an a(bc)²? No we don’t.
2(x-b)2 has a 2b2 term
No, it has a a(b-c) term, squared
shut the fuck up
says someone still trying to make the special case of Exponents and Brackets apply to a Factorised Term when it doesn’t. 😂 I’ll take that as your admission of being wrong about a(b+c)=ax(b+c) then. Thanks for playing
For a=8, b=1, that’s 2*(81)(8*1).
Only if you had defined it as such to begin with, otherwise the Brackets Exponents rule doesn’t apply if you started out with 2(8)², which is different to 2(8²) and 2(ab)²
- Comment on I dunno 9 hours ago:
a=8, b=1, it’s the same thing
No it isn’t! 😂 8 is a single numerical factor. ab is a Product of 2 algebraic factors.
False equivalence is you arguing about brackets and exponents
Nope. I was talking about 1/a(b+c) the whole time, as the reason the Distributive Law exists, until you lot decided to drag exponents into it in a False Equivalence argument. I even posted a textbook that showed more than a century ago they were still writing the first set of Brackets. i.e. 1/(a)(b+c). i.e. It’s the FOIL rule, (a+b)(c+d)=(ac+ad+bc+bd) where b=0, and these days we don’t write (a)(b+c) anymore, we just write a(b+c), which is already a single Term, thus doesn’t need the brackets around the a to show it’s a single Term.
3(x-y) is a single term…
This entire thing is about your lone-fool campaign
Hilarious that all Maths textbooks, Maths teachers, and most calculators agree with me then, isn’t it 😂
insist 2(8)2 doesn’t mean 2*82,
Again, you lot were the ones who dragged exponents into it in a False Equivalence argument to 1/a(b+c)
I found four examples, across two centuries
None of which relate to the actual original argument about 1/a(b+c)=1/(ab+ac) and not (b+c)/a
You can’t pivot to pretending this is a division syntax issue
I’m not pivoting, that was the original argument. 😂 The most popular memes are 8/2(2+2) and 6/2(1+2), and in this case they removed the Division to throw a curve-ball in there (note the pople who failed to notice the difference initially). We know a(b+c)=(ab+ac), because it has to work when it follows a Division, 1/a(b+c)=1/(ab+ac). It’s the same reason that 1/a²=1/(axa), and not 1/axa=a/a=1. It’s the reason for the brackets in (ab+ac) and (cxc), hence why it’s done in the Brackets step (not the MULTIPLY step). It’s you lot trying to pivot to arguments about exponents, because you are desperately trying to separate the a from a(b+c), so that it can be ax(b+c), but you cannot find any textbooks that say a(b+c)=ax(b+c) - they all say a(b+c)=(ab+ac) - so you’re trying this desperate False Equivalence argument to separate the a by dragging exponents into it and invoking the special Brackets rule which only applies in certain circumstances, none of which apply to a(b+c) 😂
2(8)2 is (2*8)2.
That’s right
are you just full of shit?
says the person making False Equivalence arguments. 🙄 Let me know when you find a textbook that says a(b+c)=ax(b+c), otherwise I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong that you keep avoiding the actual original point that a(b+c) is a single Term, as per Maths textbooks
- Comment on I dunno 10 hours ago:
That’s you saying it
No it isn’t! 😂 Spot the difference 1/2(8)²=1/256 vs.
6(ab)2 does not equal 6a2b2
You are unambiguously saying a(b)^c somehow means (ab)^c=a^c b^c
Nope. Never said that either 🙄
except when you try to nuh-uh at anyone pointing out that’s what you said
Because that isn’t what I said. See previous point 😂
Where the fuck did 256 come from if that’s not exactly what you’re doing?
From 2(8)², which isn’t the same thing as 2(ab)² 🙄
snipping about terms I am quoting from a textbook you posted,
Because you’re on a completely different page and making False Equivalence arguments.
you wanna pretend 2(x-b)2 isn’t precisely what you insist you’re talking about?
No idea what you’re talking about, again. 2(x-b)2 is most certainly different to 2(xb)2, no pretense needed. you’re sure hung up on making these False Equivalence arguments.
Show me any book where the equations agree with you
Easy. You could’ve started with that and saved all this trouble. (you also would’ve found this if you’d bothered to read my thread that I linked to)…
Thus, x(x-1) is a single term which is entirely in the denominator, consistent with what is taught in the early chapters of the book, which I have posted screenshots of several times.
I’ve posted four examples to the contrary
You’ve posted 4 False Equivalence arguments 🙄 If you don’t understand what that means, it means proving that ab=axb does not prove that 1/ab=1/axb. In the former the is multiplication only, in the latter there is Division, hence False Equivalence in trying to say what applies to Multiplication also applies to Division
all you’ve got is
Pointing out that you’re making a False Equivalence argument. You’re taking examples where the special Exponent rule of Brackets applies, and trying to say that applies to expressions with no Exponents. It doesn’t. 🙄 The Distributive Law always applies. The special exponent rule with Brackets only applies in certain circumstances. I already said this several posts back, and you’re pretending to not know it’s a special case, and make a False Equivalence argument to an expression that doesn’t even have any exponents in it 😂
- Comment on I dunno 11 hours ago:
Juxtaposition is key to the bullshit you made up
Terms/Products is mathematical fact, as is The Distributive Law. Maths textbooks never use the word “juxtaposition”.
You made a hundred comments in this thread about how 2*(8)2 is different from 2(8)2
That’s right. 1/2(8)²=1/256, 1/2x8²=32, same difference as 8/2(1+3)=1 but 8/2x(1+3)=16
Here is a Maths textbook saying, you’re fucking wrong
Nope! It doesn’t say that a(b+c)=ax(b+c)
Here’s another:
Question about solving an equation and not about solving an expression
You have harassed a dozen people specifically to insist that 6(ab)2 does not equal 6a2b2
Nope! I have never said that, which is why you’re unable to quote me saying that. I said 6(a+b)² doesn’t equal 6x(a+b)², same difference as 8/2(1+3)=1 but 8/2x(1+3)=16
You’ve sassed me specifically to say a variable can be zero, so 6(a+b) can be 6(a+0) can just be 6(a).
That’s right
There is no out for you
Got no idea what you’re talking about
This is what you’ve been saying
Yes
you’re just fucking wrong
No
about algebra, for children
For teenagers, who are taught The Distributive Law in Year 7
- Comment on I dunno 13 hours ago:
Then why doesn’t the juxtaposition of mc precede the square?
For starters stop calling it “juxtaposition” - it’s a Product/Term. Second, as I already told you, c²=cc, so I don’t know why you’re still going on about it. I have no idea what your point is.
In your chosen book
You know I’ve quoted dozens of books, right?
you can’t say shit about it
Again I have no idea what you’re talking about.
expands 6(ab)3 to 6(ab)(ab)(ab)
Ah, ok, NOW I see where you’re getting confused. 6ab²=6abb, but 6(ab)²=6abab. Now spot the difference between 6ab and 6(a+b). Spoiler alert - the latter is a Factorised Term, where separate Terms have been Factorised into 1 term, the former isn’t. 2 different scenario’s, 2 different rules relating to Brackets, the latter being a special case to differentiate between 6ab² and 6a²b²=6(ab)²
P.S.
is like arguing 1+2 is different from 2+1 because 8/1+2 is different from 8/2+1
this is correct - 2+1 is different from 1+2, but (1+2) is identically equal to (2+1) (notice how Brackets affect how it’s evaluated? 😂) - but I had no idea what you meant by “throwing other numbers on there”, so, again, I have no idea what your point is
- Comment on I dunno 13 hours ago:
But you understand E=mc2 does not mean E=(mxc)2
I already answered, and I have no idea what your point is.
This is you acknowledging that distribution and juxtaposition are only multiplication
Nope. It’s me acknowledging they are both BRACKETS 🙄
E=mcc=(mxcxc) <== BRACKETS
a(b+c)=(ab+ac) <== BRACKETS
and only precede
everything 😂
- Comment on I dunno 13 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? 🤣
- Comment on I dunno 23 hours ago:
This is your own source - and it says, juxtaposition is just multiplication
inside brackets. Don’t leave out the inside brackets that they have specifically said you must use - “Parentheses must be introduced”! 🤣 BTW, this is a 19th Century textbook, from before they started calling them PRODUCTS 🙄
E=mc2 is E=(mc)2
No, it means E=mc² is E=mcc=(mxcxc)
Throwing other numbers on there
I have no idea what you’re talking about 🙄
- Comment on I dunno 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…
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
- Comment on I dunno 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 😂
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 😂
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
you’re reading them wrong
says the person who is actually reading them wrong, who is unable to cite any example of me reading it wrong
clearly says a number next to a bracket means the content of the bracket must be multiplied with said number
the content of the bracket - you just quoted that yourself and still completely missed what that means 😂
Nowhere there does anybody speak of distribution taking precedence over other operations
BRACKETS has precedence over everything 😂 So here we have an example of you reading it wrong
nowhere in all sources I can find does it say so
And can you find any source which says Multiplication takes precedence over Brackets? No. Another example of you reading it wrong
Wonder why all screenshots you post use convoluted wording
They don’t use “convoluted wording”! 🤣
“the contents OF THE BRACKETS should be multiplied”
“everything IN THE BRACKET should be multiplied by that number”
Yet another example of you reading it wrong 😂
wonder why you pop up everywhere arguing the same thing and keep getting downvoted?
The only person downvoting me is the person replying, whereas the others are getting downvoted by others as well 🙄
At some point you need to understand that if one old-ass calculator
My brand new calculator gives the same answer! 😂 They all do now, except for Texas Instruments - the only one stubbornly still doing it wrongly
selective reading of cherry picked passages
Sure, I’m “cherry picking” the sections of textbooks about Distribution. Do you want me to post something random about a different topic? 😂 BTW, noted that you haven’t come up with any textbooks that agree with you
all the proof you have
And it is indeed proof.
when all modern calculators
Agree with me (except for Texas Instruments)
algebra solvers
Written by programmers who have forgotten the rules of Maths, and as pointed out by many people in forums.
maybe it’s time to reconsider
And yet, here you are not reconsidering 🙄
Juxtaposition taking precedence over other multiplications I can understand
Because BRACKETS - ab=(axb) BY DEFINITION 😂
it’s an arguable point
And is also the exact same rule 🙄
Distribution being a mandatory step
There’s a reason it’s called The Distributive Law
taking precedence over even exponents is just silly
BRACKETS taking precedence over Exponents is “silly”?? 🤣🤣🤣
and unfortunately wrong
BRACKETS taking precedence over Exponents is “unfortunately wrong”?? 🤣🤣🤣
What I say to that is I’ve met plenty of teachers who are wrong about things in their own fields,
You think they’re wrong you mean, person who is saying Brackets before Exponents is “wrong” 🤣🤣🤣
people defining the rules of all those algebra solvers aren’t the programmers,
Yes they are! That’s why they give wrong answers 😂 I told one he was wrong and he went and fixed it, being the one who had programmed it that way 🙄
as you’d know if you looked a bit into product development.
I know they are because I have spoken directly to them 😂 Maybe try asking some yourself, before making completely wrong statements
It’s domain experts
No it isn’t, as proven by personal experience. You know who uses domain experts? calculator manufacturers. 😂 They have considerably more riding on it being right or not.
who also define tests and receive feedback on the software’s performance and errors
You know there’s a whole bunch of programmers who don’t bother even defining tests to begin with, right??
I’m sure (lol) you’ve sent feedback to them
Yep!
they probably looked at it and decided you’re wrong
Except for the ones who did change it. The ones who claimed I was wrong, quoted Google - who have also been told they’re wrong by many people -and not Maths textbooks 🙄
As well all have.
says person who did nothing of the sort, and lied about such things as "all modern calculators " being against me (they aren’t, if you had actually tried some), Exponents having precedence over Brackets, etc.
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
Dude you’re not even hitting the right reply buttons anymore
Yes I am
Is that what you do when you’re drunk?
Is that why you think I’m hitting the wrong buttons?
It’d explain leading with ‘nope! I’ve said exactly what you accused me of.’
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe stop drinking
You keep pretending distribution is different from multiplication
No pretending - is is different - it’s why you get different answers to 8/2(1+3) (Distribution) and 8/2x(1+3) (Multiplication) 😂
That’s not Multiplication, it’s Distribution, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), a(b)=(axb).
That’s right.
And then posting images that explicitly say the contents of the brackets should be multiplied
The “contents OF THE BRACKETS”, done in the BRACKETS step , not the MULTIPLICATION step - there you go quoting proof that I’m correct! 😂
Or that they can be simplified first.
That’s right, you can simplify then DISTRIBUTE, both part of the BRACKETS step, and your point is?
I am not playing dueling-sources with you
No, because you haven’t got any 😂
your own sources call bullshit on what you keep hassling strangers about
says person failing to give a single example of that EVER happenning 😂
I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong then. Thanks for playing
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
You’ve harassed a dozen people to say only 53+514
Nope! I’ve said a(b+c)=(ab+ac) is correct.
to the point you think 2(3+5)2 isn’t 2*82
You mean I know that, because it disobeys The Distributive Law 🙄 The expression you’re looking for is 2x(3+5)², which is indeed not subject to Distribution, since the 2 is not next to the brackets.
If you’d stuck to one dogmatic answer
Instead I’ve stuck to one actual law of Maths, a(b+c)=(ab+ac).
But you’ve concisely proven
The Distributive Law, including c=0 🙄 Not sure why you would think c=0 is somehow an exception from a law
the harassment is the point
No, the rules of Maths is the point
when you can’t do algebra right
Says person who thinks c=0 is somehow an exception that isn’t allowed🙄
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
I think I know what you’re missing - perhaps intentionally 🙄 - in a(b+c), c can be equal to 0. It can be any number, not just positive and negative, leaving us with a(b)=(axb), which is also what I’ve been saying all along (not sure how you missed it, other than to deliberately ignore it)
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
And what do you do with and and the b and then the a and the c?
BTW, there’s no “the a and the b” and “the a and the c”, there’s ab and ac, which need to be added. If a=2, b=3, and c=4, we have 2(3+4)=(6+8)=14
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
The first textbook only gets 5(17) by not doing what the second textbook says to do with 5(3+14)
Because the first textbook is illustrating do brackets from the inside out, which the second textbook isn’t doing (it only has one set of brackets, not nested brackets like the first one). They even tell you that right before the example. They still are both Distributing. You’re also ignoring that they actually wrote 5[3+(14)], so they are resolving the inner brackets first, exactly as they said they were doing. 🙄 The 5 is outside the outermost brackets, and so they Distribute when they reach the outermost brackets. This is so not complicated - I don’t know why you struggle with it so much 🙄
First image says ‘always simplify inside,’ and shows that
And then says to Distribute, and shows that 🙄 “A number next to anything in brackets means the contents of the brackets should be multiplied”.
Second image says ‘everything inside must be multiplied,’ and shows that
Yep, that’s right, same as I’ve been telling you the whole time 😂
You’re such an incompetent troll that you proved yourself wrong within the same post
Ah, no, you did, again - you even just quoted that the second one also says to Distribute! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 😂 I’ll remember that you just called yourself an incompetent troll going forward. 😂
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
I’ve read everything you’ve posted
You’ve read every textbook, and looked at the calculator answer? Yeah nah, you clearly haven’t.
you’re interpreting the texts in such a way that they support your flawed argument
Says person who can’t come up with any textbooks that support their argument. 😂 BTW if you had looked at the calculator, you would’ve seen it does it exactly as I have described - 6/2(1+2)=6/2(3)=6/(2x3)=6/6=1, not, you know, 6/2(1+2)=3(3)=9, which is your flawed argument
conveniently ignoring what they’re actually saying, such as “if” statements
Says person ignoring this “if” statement which says you literally must distribute if you want to remove the brackets.
Even this textbook that you yourself posted goes against what you’re saying
No it doesn’t! 😂
Notice something?
Yes, you ignored the Distribution in the last step 😂 I have no idea what you think is significant about the first 2 steps, other than you were trying to draw attention away from the Distribution in the last step
Here’s another one (different authors) that does the same thing, which you would’ve seen if you had actually read all the textbooks I posted, but they explicitly spell out what they’re doing as they’re doing it…
- Comment on I dunno 1 day ago:
5(17) means they didn’t distribute 5(3+14) into 53+514
That’s right, they Distributed the 5(17) into (5x17), and your point is?
These textbooks unambiguously disagree
With you, yes, and your point is?
- Comment on I dunno 2 days ago:
Or it was some random teacher
Yeah, maybe. My Year 7 students, who have come fresh to me from Year 6, use BEDMAS, and I teach BEDMAS for consistency (I also think it’s a better acronym anyway - think of a massive 4-poster bed to ingrain the idea of BED-MAS)…
- Comment on I dunno 2 days ago:
Like how the 5 in the first image isn’t?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And how exactly do you think they got from 5(17) to 85 without distributing?? 🤣 Spoiler alert, this is what they actually did…
5(17)=(5x17)=85
They do that throughout the book, because they think it’s so trivial to get from 5(17) to 85, that if you don’t know how to do it without writing (5x17) first, then you have deeper problems than just not knowing how to Distribute 😂
- Comment on I dunno 2 days ago:
Lmao citing yourself
Nope! I cite Maths textbooks here, here, here, here, here, here, here, a calculator here, need I go on? 🙄 There’s plenty more of them
assuming you’re correct and smarter than everyone who programs solvers,
That’s hilarious that you think random programmers know more about Maths than a Maths professional 😂
even those who are known to be respectable and used extensively in academia
As I already stated, everyone knows the complete opposite of that about them. It’s hilarious that you’re trying to prop up places that give both right and wrong answers to the exact same expression as somehow being respectable. 😂 And you’ll see at the end of that thread - if you decide to read it this time - the poof that academia does not use it (because they know it spits out random answers)
Nothing’s been established cause you’ve cited sources that don’t support your argument
BWAHAHAHAAH! Like?? 😂
repeating them again and again won’t make it different.
That’s right, the Maths textbooks are still as correct about it as the first time I cited them.
continuing this is useless
Well it is when you don’t bother reading the links, which you’ve just proven is the case
- Comment on I dunno 2 days ago:
I tried Wolfram Alpha, Google, and others, and they all return 128
Yep, all known to give wrong order of operations answers
So either you’re wrong
Well, it’s not me, so…
all people who make these tools professionally are wrong
That’s right. Welcome to programmers writing Maths apps without checking that they have their Maths right first. BTW, in some cases it’s as bad as one of their calculators saying 2+3x4=20! 😂
To be clear, the reason you’re wrong is because distribution is not part of the brackets step
To be clear, I am correct, because Distribution is part of the Brackets step, as we have already established…
Brackets are solved before exponents,
Yes
resulting in 2(8)²
No, you haven’t finished solving the Brackets yet, which you must do before proceeding…
Remove the brackets and then it’s 2*8²
Nope! We have already established that you cannot remove the brackets if you haven’t Distributed yet…
So what we actually get is…
2(8)²=(2x8)²=16²
and now that I have removed the Brackets, I can now do the exponent,
16²=256
Welcome to you finding the answer to 2x(3+5)² - where the 2 is separate to the brackets, separated from them by the multiply sign - rather than 2(3+5)², which has no multiply sign, and therefore the 2 must be Distributed
- Comment on I dunno 2 days ago:
Sorry, mate, TLDR
I’ll take that as an admission of being wrong then
I skimmed through it, I’m glad you learned some new concepts
I’ve no idea whose comments you skimmed through, but clearly not mine. I’ve been saying the same thing from start to finish, and you eventually contradicted yourself 😂
you’re then trying to turn it around and pretend like I didn’t understand something
says someone trying to pretend he did 😂
- Comment on I dunno 2 days ago:
You incompetent fraud, that’s a different person
That would be because you are replying to my reply to them and not my reply to you, which makes you the incompetent fraud 😂
It’s easy to lose track when literally everyone is calling out your bullshit
says someone who actually lost track and is replying to my reply to someone else 😂
Here’s you quoting a textbook that says to solve inside the brackets first, even without a mulitply sign.
In other words, The Distributive Law, as I’ve been saying all along, yes, and your point is?
Here’s you quoting a textbook that says you must do the opposite of that.
Nope! Says the exact same thing - Distribute BEFORE REMOVING BRACKETS which is exactly what the previous one did. I have no idea why you think they contradict each other 😂
And as a bonus, here’s you getting 2(3+5)2 wrong.
Nope! Getting it right, Brackets before exponents, as per the order of operations rules, found in Maths textbooks 😂
I am looking for how to politely contact your instance’s admins about your behavior.
Because there’s something wrong with fact checking?? 😂 Students usually appreciate finding out where they went wrong, but not you, obviously, and somehow that’s an issue for an admin?? 😂
- Comment on I dunno 2 days ago:
Calls me a liar, then says exactly what I said they think
Nope! I never said you get the wrong answer with 3(3) - noted you were unable to show where I supposedly said that - so no, I did not say what you said I think 🙄
- Comment on I dunno 3 days ago:
Me: consistently using the Distributive Law throughout the thread.
Nope. Let’s go to the screenshots again…
I showed you two
Nope, you showed Wikipedia, which is known to be wrong, as per Maths textbooks
True, but reading again carefully would change what you thought was written
Nope. Still says add all positive numbers first! 😂
You think all maths knowledge only comes from school textbooks!
Never said anything of the sort liar, which is why you’re unable to quote me saying that. I did say to you, repeatedly, that you are unable to cite any Maths textbooks that support you, and so far you have proven that to be true, since you haven’t cited any maths textbooks. You really do need to work on that poor comprehension of yours 😂
Nope, see screenshot of you saying they are the same
Nope! That was you! Here we go…
so you don’t know what “context” is
Says person who can’t even remember what he said, despite me posting screenshots of him saying it 😂
In which case they will often make mistakes, as shown by the “9 minus whatever plus something” equation I did
In which you failed that anyone at all has ever done it like that, other than you 😂
I get that you’re only on your “day two on the Internet” so you’re not aware of it, but these kinds of equations cause people A LOT of trouble
Says person who can’t show anyone having trouble with it, thus revealing himself as the Day 2 person 😂
I get what you’re saying. That if
Where you then went on to say something completely unrelated to anything I said, thus proving you don’t get what I’m saying 😂
I hope, you get where this line of thinking fails, right?
Which would maybe be why I never said anything of the sort 😂
so you’re saying that a site teaching maths is wrong
Yep, there’s a lot of them. Welcome to what happens when people don’t have to have Maths qualifications to write a Maths website. Welcome to the Internet Day 2 person! 😂
your proof is
Maths textbooks
A is not before S
So, it’s not bedmAS and pemdAS?? 😂
A is equal to S in the order of operations
Which means you can do them in any order, including doing A BEFORE S, a concept you are having a lot of trouble with 😂 having claimed that led people to get wrong answers, like 9-3+2=4, which so far you’ve not shown anyone making that mistake other than you 😂
PEMDAS and BODMAS (where, I’m sure your keen eye will notice, the D and M are flipped)
and are not written as PE(MD)(AS) and BE(DM)(AS), which you claimed is important to remember, and still haven’t backed up with any evidence whatsoever! 😂
Addition and subtraction also work together. You can do subtraction first, or you can do addition first
Yep, as I’ve been telling you all along. So where’s this bit about “it’s important to remember PE(MD)(AS)” then? Not anywhere in this source 😂
So, there’s that
Which doesn’t support your argument that it’s PE(MD)(AS), so there’s that 😂
I thought you were capable of checking the sources on the bottom of the article.
Which also weren’t Maths textbooks, as I already pointed out to you 😂
wouldn’t consider actual mathematical research as sources
Mr. Lack of Comprehension still not understanding the words MATHS TEXTBOOKS 🤣🤣🤣
I hope the university article links above will be good enough?
Do you need to get your mum to read this out to you to spot the difference between the phrases “Maths textbooks” and “University article”? 😂
You have an extremely weird fixation on brackets
You were the one who made the claim about the brackets. I’m just debunking your rubbish claim about the brackets 😂
The only thing we’ve debunked is your understanding of mathematical fundamentals and reading skills.
says someone who can’t tell the difference between Maths textbooks, and any one of a dozen other things 😂
You caught me on misremembering one of the couple of examples I gave you!
Lying is the word you’re looking for, and more than a couple
So now, again, why did you start talking about 1 + 3 if the examples were 2 - 2 and 2 / 2?
Take you own advice - go back and read it slowly this time 😂 Still says the same thing as when I first said it
Awww… You can’t answer these questions?
No, you can’t defend your claim, so you keep deflecting
And where are the brackets, friend?
Speaking of being fixated on brackets 😂
as I see you’ll just never let go of this misconception of yours, here you are:
Still not a Maths textbook. Have you noticed yet that you haven’t been able to cite any Maths textbook that supports your claims?? 😂
You can see the exact same notation as I used
That wasn’t from a Maths textbook
When you read the rest of that Level 1 introductory lesson
It still won’t be a Maths textbook
it’s OK to have a vivid imagination, but you’re just making yourself look silly when you talk about it with others as if it’s fact
The proof is in this thread 😂
Setting pronumerals to 1 is the same as just removing them from the notation completely
which means it is totally valid to add all positive numbers first, as per the textbook which had an example with pronumerals and did just that😂
I firmly believe that we can get you to understand the whole thing within a week!
says person who still doesn’t understand what the words “Maths textbooks” MEANS 😂
- Comment on I dunno 3 days ago:
Exponents come after brackets
That’s right
so I’m curious to see how you solve that with your logic
Ummm, you do the brackets and then the exponent. Not sure what you find unclear about that
It has an obvious correct solution
The one where you do the brackets before the exponent
which is 128
Nope! You can only get that by doing the exponent before the brackets, which is against the order of operations rules. Or did you wrongly add a multiply sign before the brackets - that also yields a different answer
you need to distribute in the brackets step
That’s right, so why did you do the exponent first?
which comes before exponents,
That’s right. So why did you do the exponent first?
so let’s see what you do with it
Brackets before exponents, as already established 🙄
- Comment on I dunno 3 days ago:
I know that you finally understood what I was talking about,
other way around dude, as proven by screenshots
t’s OK to keep it all to a single thread
So you want to keep it here, because the other is full of screenshots proving you wrong and you want to ignore them?? 🤣🤣🤣
