• moriquende@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Bro directly after what you underlined it says “if you want to remove the brackets” lol. Selective reading much? “If” means optional. You are free to solve what’s inside the brackets first, before multiplying it with what’s outside.

    Also, the link I posted is literally titled “distributive law”, not property. You realize a law can have conditions, right?

    Quick quiz for you: what’s the result of 2(3+5)² ?

    • Bro directly after what you underlined it says “if you want to remove the brackets”

      Yep, that’s right, and removing brackets is the first step in order of operations 😂

      Selective reading much?

      By you apparently.

      “If” means optional

      So… you’re telling me that the “B” step in BEDMAS, and the “P” step in PEMDAS, is optional? I don’t have to remove Brackets?? 😂 Better go back to school dude

      You are free to solve what’s inside the brackets first, before multiplying it with what’s outside

      Yep, but inside the brackets, as per the text you can see in the screenshot 😂

      5(8-5)=(5x8-5x5)=(40-25)=15

      5(8-5)=5(3)=(5x3)=15 <== Multiplication inside the Brackets, as per The Distributive Law

      same answer both ways 😂

      the link I posted is literally titled “distributive law”, not property

      But has a multiply sign in it, thus proving it is the Property that they are talking about - The Distributive Property of Multiplication over Addition to call it by it’s full name

      You realize a law can have conditions, right?

      You realise it literally must be obeyed, right? The condition that The Distributive Law has, is “A number or letter next to a Bracket”, direct quote from the textbook, hence a(b+c)=(ab+ac), and not ax(b+c) since the a is not next to the bracket in that case

          • moriquende@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Exponents come after brackets, so I’m curious to see how you solve that with your logic lol. It has an obvious correct solution, which is 128, but you need to distribute in the brackets step, which comes before exponents, so let’s see what you do with it lmao.

            • 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 🙄

              • moriquende@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                24 hours ago

                Ok bro now find an expression solver that verifies your solution. I tried Wolfram Alpha, Google, and others, and they all return 128. So either you’re wrong, or all people who make these tools professionally are wrong. Not trying to be offensive, but I know where I’m putting my money.

                To be clear, the reason you’re wrong is because distribution is not part of the brackets step. Brackets are solved before exponents, resulting in 2(8)². Remove the brackets and then it’s 2*8²

                • 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

                  • moriquende@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    18 hours ago

                    Lmao citing yourself and assuming you’re correct and smarter than everyone who programs solvers, even those who are known to be respectable and used extensively in academia. Nothing’s been established cause you’ve cited sources that don’t support your argument, and repeating them again and again won’t make it different. Good day bro, continuing this is useless.