You realize a calculator doesn’t need to be a dedicated hardware, right? Windows calculator, MacOS calculator, Android calculator, and all web-based calculators count as well.
You have no clue what you’re talking about. Wolfram Alpha is a commercial product (with a free-tier as is usual nowadays) and uses the same engine as Mathematica, which is used extensively in industry, academic institutions, and government agencies.
None of your sources has exponents in them, and that’s very convenient for your mistake of mixing up juxtaposition and your invented rule.
Btw, ask yourself this as well: why would your invented interpretation of distributive law be necessary at all? It brings no benefit to the table at all. Juxtaposition arguably does, because it allows shorter notation, but your invention doesn’t.
Please find a calculator that gives a result different to 128 for the expression 2(3+5)². You won’t be able to, because it’s the only correct answer. If you don’t post a reproducible example of a solver anywhere coming to a different solution, I’ll consider your argument defeated and ignore further engagement from your part. Have a nice day!
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
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?
Solving brackets does not include forced distribution
Yes it does! 😂
Juxtaposition means multiplication,
No, it doesn’t. 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! 😂 The textbook above says to Distribute first, then Simplify.
while there are still multiple terms inside
As in 2(8)=(2x8) and 2(3+5)=(6+10) 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, so their whole argument hangs on all Maths textbooks are wrong but can’t say why, 😂 wrongly calls Products “Multiplication”, and claimed that I invented a rule that is in an 1898 textbook! 🤣 And has also failed to come up with any alterative “interpretations” of “must” and “Brackets” that don’t mean, you know, must and brackets 😂
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…
You realize a calculator doesn’t need to be a dedicated hardware, right? Windows calculator, MacOS calculator, Android calculator, and all web-based calculators count as well.
You have no clue what you’re talking about. Wolfram Alpha is a commercial product (with a free-tier as is usual nowadays) and uses the same engine as Mathematica, which is used extensively in industry, academic institutions, and government agencies.
None of your sources has exponents in them, and that’s very convenient for your mistake of mixing up juxtaposition and your invented rule.
Btw, ask yourself this as well: why would your invented interpretation of distributive law be necessary at all? It brings no benefit to the table at all. Juxtaposition arguably does, because it allows shorter notation, but your invention doesn’t.
Please find a calculator that gives a result different to 128 for the expression
2(3+5)². You won’t be able to, because it’s the only correct answer. If you don’t post a reproducible example of a solver anywhere coming to a different solution, I’ll consider your argument defeated and ignore further engagement from your part. Have a nice day!You realise the calculator manufacturers have much more riding on their calculators being correct, right? 😂
Nope. Programmed by… programmers, who aren’t earning any money from the calculator, and put the corresponding amount of effort into it.
says someone who just claimed that e-calcs count as much as actual, buy from a store, calculators 🤣
Also well known to give wrong answers
Nope! Academia warns against using it
In other words, you’re admitting to trying to deflect from what’s in Maths textbooks! 😂
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? 🤣
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 😂
Being able to reverse the process of Factorising brings no benefit to the table?? 🤣
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?? 🤣
AKA Factorised Terms and Products 😂
Again, explain how “my invention” appears in textbooks that are more than 100 years old. I’ll wait 🤣
Have you noticed yet that everything you think is correct is actually wrong as per Maths textbooks?? 🤣
says person who has been comprehensively defeated by Maths textbooks and is now trying to deflect away from that 🤣
I’ll take that as an admission that you’re wrong then, having been unable to debunk any Maths textbooks. See ya
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? 🤣
Nobody has argued exponents should go before brackets.
I’m saying distribution being mandatory is an invented rule from your part.
No wonder you can’t produce such a simple request. I thought you had calculators that work “correctly”?
You did! 😂 You said 2(3+5)²=2(8)²=2(64), which is doing the Exponent when there are still unsolved Brackets 😂
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
says person who still hasn’t produced a single textbook that supports anything that they say, and it’s such a simple request 😂
Solving brackets does not include forced distribution. Juxtaposition means multiplication, and as such,
2(3+5)²is the same as2*(3+5)², so once the brackets result in8, 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)²is 256 and you’ve won, it’s so easy no?Yes it does! 😂
No, it doesn’t. 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…
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
if you want to remove the brackets, YES, that’s what the Brackets step is for, duh! 😂 The textbook above says to Distribute first, then Simplify.
As in 2(8)=(2x8) and 2(3+5)=(6+10) is multiple Terms inside 😂
Nope! The Brackets step, duh 😂 You cannot progress until all Brackets have been removed
It doesn’t have a higher priority than Brackets! 🤣
says person who can’t cite any textbooks that agree with them, so their whole argument hangs on all Maths textbooks are wrong but can’t say why, 😂 wrongly calls Products “Multiplication”, and claimed that I invented a rule that is in an 1898 textbook! 🤣 And has also failed to come up with any alterative “interpretations” of “must” and “Brackets” that don’t mean, you know, must and brackets 😂
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…