mindbleach
@mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on I dunno 2 days ago:
says person who can’t tell the difference between a(b+c) and a(bc)
Then you’re just a crank who lies to thirteen-year-olds about some bullshit you made up.
Both 2(8+0)^2^ and 2(8*1)^2^ simplify to 2(8)^2^. They can’t get different answers.
Nobody but you has this problem. Real math doesn’t work differently based on how you got there.
- Comment on Sea Level 2 days ago:
And the sci-fi cliche is to have enormous moons filling the sky, but realistically, ours is comically large. Even planets in our solar system mostly see moons the way we see those planets. You get a dot.
- Comment on I dunno 2 days ago:
We can see the Acrobat window in those scans you found online.
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.
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, even if that means saying Wolfram fucking Alpha is wrong about basic algebra.
Faced with a contradiction that requires you to insist (8*1) ≠ (8+0), you’re going to type laughter and spam emojis as if that inspires any reaction besides pity. The word you should be looking for is, “oops.”
- Comment on I dunno 3 days ago:
Who are you talking to?
All I said was: If 5(4)^2^ is 516, like this college math textbook shows, then 2(8)^2^ is 264.
Every published example will agree this is how it works. None, at any level of education, will agree with your bullshit.
- Comment on I dunno 3 days ago:
who mysteriously owns dozens of Maths textbooks
PDFs found online. From which you are ignoring counterexamples using a(b+c)^n^. Fraud.
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.
There is no special case. You made it up. 8+0 equals 8 (or sorry, does it just mean 8?) so 2(8+0)^2^ is the same as 2(8)^2^. The latter is the next step in simplifying the former. You’ve admitted simplifying first is valid, when your nose was rubbed in your own found PDFs doing exactly that.
You don’t have an opinion. You make no claim, anymore. All you have left are derision and emojis. You’ve admitted 2(8*1)^2^ means 2(8)(8), and insist that’s different from 2(8)^2^ because… ibid. You cannot explain it even now.
- Comment on I dunno 3 days ago:
Your bullshit hit max comment depth.
That would mean 2(8*1)2 is 128
That’s right,
So when you said 2(8)^2^ is 256, you were wrong.
Otherwise - walk me through how 2(8*1)^2^, 2(8+0)^2^, and 2(8)^2^ aren’t equal, alleged math teacher.
None of them have said a(b+c)=ax(b+c)
“3(x+y) means 3*(x+y).”
means not equals
“It depends on what the definition of is, is,” says someone definitely not trapped in a contradiction.
- Comment on I dunno 3 days ago:
If 5(4)^2^ is 5*16 then 2(8)^2^ is 2*64.
I get a free hoagie.
- Comment on I dunno 3 days ago:
So you’re saying there no such rule as 2(ab)²=2a²b².
That would mean 2(8*1)^2^ is 128. You are the one saying it’s not 2a^2^b^2^, because you think it’s 2^2^a^2^b^2^, and that 2(8*1)^2^ is 256. I’m not touching anything without exponents because exponents are where you are blatantly full of shit.
if it has been written as 2(ab)², not if it has been written a(b+c)²
Source: your ass. Every published example disagrees, and you just go, nuh-uh, that up-to-date Maths textbook must be wrong. You alone are correct on this accursed Earth.
Hey look, another one of the textbooks you insist I read says you’re completely wrong: “The multiplication sign is often not included between letters, e.g. 3ab means 3 * a * b.” Page 31 of the PDF… right above where you’ve dishonestly twisted the “expanding brackets” text. Next page: “3(x+y) means 3*(x+y).”
Page 129 of that PDF, exercise 5, question 14: simplify 2(e^4^)^2^. The answer on PDF page 414 is 2e^8^. Your bullshit would say 4e^8^.
Right below that, exercise 5*, question 4: 4(4^4^)^4^. The answer on PDF page 414 is 1.72x10^10^. The bullshit you’ve made up would be 1.10x10^11^. 5* questions 7, 9, 10, and 11 also have the same a(b)^c^ format as 2(8)^2^, if you somehow need further proof of how this actually works.
PDF page 134, exam practice question 10a, simplify 3(q^2^)^2^. PDF page 415 says 3q^6^. Your bullshit says 9q^6^.
Damn dude, that’s five textbooks you chose saying you’re full of shit, and zero backing you up. One more and I get a free hoagie. Your bullshit has brought us to max comment depth.
- Comment on I dunno 3 days ago:
There is no special case. You made it up by confusing yourself about “dismissing a bracket.” To everyone else in the world, brackets are just another term. Several of the textbooks I’ve linked will freely juxtapose brackets and variables before or after, because it makes no difference.
Here’s yet another example, PDF page 27: (6+5)x+(-2+10)y. And that’s as factorization. This Maths textbook you plainly didn’t read was published this decade. Still waiting on any book ever that demonstrates your special bullshit.
7bx with b=(m+n) becomes 7(m+n)x and it’s the same damn thing. Splitting it like 7xm+7xn is no different from splitting (m+n)/7 into m/7+n/7. Brackets only happen first because they have to be reduced to a single term. A bracket with one number is not “unsolved” - it’s one number. Squaring a bracket with one number is squaring that number. The base of an exponent is whatever’s in the symbols of inclusion. Hence: 6(ab)^3^ = 6(ab)(ab)(ab).
No, it has a a(b-c) term, squared
It has a (b-c) term, squared. The base of an exponent is whatever’s in the symbols of inclusion. See page 121 of 696, in the PDF you plainly got from Archive.org. “In an expression such as 3a^2^, the 2 is the exponent of the base a. In an expression such as (3a)^2^, the 2 is the exponent of the base 3a, because you enclosed the expression in a symbol of inclusion.” You will never find a published example that makes an exception for distribution first.
On the page before your screenshot - 116 of 696 - this specific Maths textbook refers to both 8x7 and 8(7) as “symbols of multiplication.” It’s just multiplication. It’s only ever multiplication. It’s not special, you crank. 8(7) is a product identical to 8x7.
Only if you had defined it as such to begin with
Variables don’t work differently when you know what they are. b=1 is not somehow an exception that isn’t allowed, remember?
There’s an exponent in 2(8)^2^ and it concisely demonstrates to anyone who passed high school that you can’t do algebra.
- Comment on I dunno 4 days ago:
3(x-y) is a single term…
So is 3xy, according to that textbook. That doesn’t mean 3xy^2^ is 9*y^2^*x^2^. The power only applies to the last element… like how (8)2^2^ only squares the 2.
Four separate textbooks explicitly demonstrate that that’s how a(b)^c^ works. 6(ab)^3^ is 6(ab)(ab)(ab), not (6ab)(6ab)(6ab). 3(x+1)^2^ for x=-2 is 3, not 9. 2(x-b)^2^ has a 2b^2^ term, not 4b^2^. 15(a-b)^3^x^2^ is not (3375a-3375b)x^2^. If any textbook anywhere shows a(b)^c^ producing (ab)^c^, or x(a-b)^c^ producing (xa-xb)^c^, then reveal it, or shut the fuck up.
2(ab)^2^ is 2(ab)(ab) the same way 6(ab)^3^ is 6(ab)(ab)(ab). For a=8, b=1, that’s 2*(8*1)*(8*1).
- Comment on I dunno 4 days ago:
From 2(8)², which isn’t the same thing as 2(ab)²
a=8, b=1, it’s the same thing.
False equivalence is you arguing about brackets and exponents by pointing to equations without exponents.
This entire thing is about your lone-fool campaign to insist 2(8)^2^ doesn’t mean 2*8^2^, despite multiple textbook examples that only work because a(b)^c^ is a*b^c^ and not a^c^b^c^.
I found four examples, across two centuries, of your certain circumstances: addition in brackets, factor without multiply symbol, exponent on the bracket. You can’t pivot to pretending this is a division syntax issue, when you’ve explicitly said 2(8)^2^ is (2*8)^2^. Do you have a single example that matches that, or are you just full of shit?
- Comment on I dunno 4 days ago:
I have never said that, which is why you’re unable to quote me saying that.
…
1/2(8)²=1/256
That’s you saying it. You are unambiguously saying a(b)^c^ somehow means (ab)^c^=a^c^b^c^ instead of ab^c^, except when you try to nuh-uh at anyone pointing out that’s what you said. Where the fuck did 256 come from if that’s not exactly what you’re doing?
You’re allegedly an algebra teacher, snipping about terms I am quoting from a textbook you posted, and you wanna pretend 2(x-b)^2^ isn’t precisely what you insist you’re talking about? Fine, here’s yet another example:
A First Book In Algebra, Boyden 1895, on page 47 (49 in the Gutenberg PDF), in exercise 24, question 18 reads, divide 15(a-b)^3^x^2^ by 3(a-b)x. The answer on page 141 of the PDF is 5(a-b)^2^x. For a=2, b=1, the question and answer get 5x, while the bullshit you’ve made up gets 375x.
Show me any book where the equations agree with you. Not words, not acronyms - an answer key, or a worked example. Show me one time that published math has said x(b+c)^n^ gets an x^n^ term. I’ve posted four examples to the contrary and all you’ve got is pretending not to see x(b+c)^n^ right fuckin’ there in each one.
- Comment on I dunno 4 days ago:
Juxtaposition is key to the bullshit you made up, you infuriating sieve. You made a hundred comments in this thread about how 2*(8)^2^ is different from 2(8)^2^. Here is a Maths textbook saying, you’re fucking wrong.
Here’s another: First Steps In Algebra, Wentworth 1904, on page 143 (as in the Gutenberg PDF), in exercise 54, question 9 reads (x-a)(2x-a)=2(x-b)^2^. The answer on page 247 is x=(2b^2^-a^2^)/(4b-3a). If a=1, b=0, the question and answer get 1/3, and the bullshit you’ve made up does not.
You have harassed a dozen people specifically to insist that 6(ab)^2^ does not equal 6a^2^b^2^. 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). There is no out for you. This is what you’ve been saying, and you’re just fucking wrong, about algebra, for children.
- Comment on I dunno 4 days ago:
Then why doesn’t the juxtaposition of mc precede the square?
In your chosen book is the example you’re pestering moriquende for, and you can’t say shit about it.
Another: A First Book In Algebra, Boyden 1895, on page 47 (49 in the Gutenberg PDF), in exercise 24, question 18 reads, divide 15(a-b)^3^x^2^ by 3(a-b)x. The answer on page 141 of the PDF is 5(a-b)^2^x. For a=2, b=1, the question and answer get 5x, while the bullshit you’ve made up gets 375x.
Another: Keys To Algebra 1-4’s answer booklet, page 19, upper right: “book 2, page 9” expands 6(ab)^3^ to 6(ab)(ab)(ab), and immediately after that, expands (6ab)^3^ to (6ab)(6ab)(6ab). The bullshit you made up says they should be equal.
- Comment on I dunno 4 days ago:
Because BRACKETS - ab=(axb) BY DEFINITION
“Parentheses must be introduced”!
But you understand E=mc^2^ does not mean E=(mxc)^2^.
This is you acknowledging that distribution and juxtaposition are only multiplication - and only precede other multiplication.
In your chosen Introduction To Algebra, Chrystal 1817, on page 80 (page 100 of the PDF you used), under Exercises XII, question 24 reads (x+1)(x-1)+2(x+2)(x+3)=3(x+1)^2^. The answer on page 433 of the PDF reads -2. If 3(x+1)^2^ worked the way you pretend it does, that would mean 3=9.
- Comment on I dunno 5 days ago:
This is your own source - and it says, juxtaposition is just multiplication. It doesn’t mean E=mc^2^ is E=(mc)^2^.
Throwing other numbers on there is like arguing 1+2 is different from 2+1 because 8/1+2 is different from 8/2+1.
- Comment on I dunno 5 days ago:
Dude you’re not even hitting the right reply buttons anymore. Is that what you do when you’re drunk? It’d explain leading with ‘nope! I’ve said exactly what you accused me of.’
- Comment on I dunno 5 days ago:
You’ve harassed a dozen people to say only 5*3+5*14 is correct, to the point you think 2(3+5)^2^ isn’t 2*8^2^.
If you’d stuck to one dogmatic answer you could pretend it’s a pet peeve. But you’ve concisely proven you don’t give a shit - the harassment is the point. Quote, posture, emoji, repeat, when you can’t do algebra right.
- Comment on I dunno 5 days ago:
The first textbook only gets 5(17) by not doing what the second textbook says to do with 5(3+14).
First image says ‘always simplify inside,’ and shows that.
Second image says ‘everything inside must be multiplied,’ and shows that.
You’re such an incompetent troll that you proved yourself wrong within the same post.
- Comment on Anon remembers the GameCube 5 days ago:
People cramming a Gamecube into a GBA SP are not average.
- Comment on Anon remembers the GameCube 5 days ago:
I’m surprised they aren’t just desoldering chips off the Wii at this point. It wouldn’t be any less nerve-wracking.
- Comment on I dunno 6 days ago:
5(17) means they didn’t distribute 5(3+14) into 53+514.
These textbooks unambiguously disagree.
- Comment on Anon remembers the GameCube 6 days ago:
- Comment on One slur to rule them all 6 days ago:
Derrick’s “Spelling Bee” suggests cell D3 should be dominant.
- Comment on I dunno 6 days ago:
therefore the 2 must be Distributed
Like how the 5 in the first image isn’t?
- Comment on I dunno 6 days ago:
You incompetent fraud, that’s a different person - me. It’s easy to lose track when literally everyone is calling out your bullshit.
Here’s you quoting a textbook that says you must do the opposite of that.
And as a bonus, here’s you getting 2(3+5)^2^ wrong.
I am looking for how to politely contact your instance’s admins about your behavior.
- Comment on Is audiophile bullshit cheating? 1 week ago:
You can hear the sustain!
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
Calls me a liar, then says exactly what I said they think. Troll.
Fuck off.
- Comment on Is this true? 1 week ago:
No, many dangerous sea animals come much further inland.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
This guy thinks 3(2+1) gets the wrong answer if you do 3(3) instead of 32+31. They will never learn anything and they will never shut up about it. This trolling bullshit is the only thing I’ve ever seen them comment.
Proceed apace if slapping that down entertains you - but proceed knowing it’s all you’re going to get.
