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 😂
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. 😂
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)
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,🙄but can’t cite any textbook which says that
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.’
You keep pretending distribution is different from multiplication:
The context is Maths, you have to obey the rules of Maths. a(b+c)=(ab+ac), 5(8-5)=(5x8-5x5).
And then posting images that explicitly say the contents of the brackets should be multiplied. Or that they can be simplified first. I am not playing dueling-sources with you, because your own sources call bullshit on what you keep hassling strangers about.
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*82.
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.
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 😂
5(17) means they didn’t distribute 5(3+14) into 5*3+5*14.
These textbooks unambiguously disagree.
That’s right, they Distributed the 5(17) into (5x17), and your point is?
With you, yes, and your point is?
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.
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 🙄
And then says to Distribute, and shows that 🙄 “A number next to anything in brackets means the contents of the brackets should be multiplied”.
Yep, that’s right, same as I’ve been telling you the whole time 😂
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. 😂
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)
Nope! I’ve said a(b+c)=(ab+ac) is correct.
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.
Instead I’ve stuck to one actual law of Maths, a(b+c)=(ab+ac).
The Distributive Law, including c=0 🙄 Not sure why you would think c=0 is somehow an exception from a law
No, the rules of Maths is the point
Says person who thinks c=0 is somehow an exception that isn’t allowed,🙄but can’t cite any textbook which says that
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.’
You keep pretending distribution is different from multiplication:
And then posting images that explicitly say the contents of the brackets should be multiplied. Or that they can be simplified first. I am not playing dueling-sources with you, because your own sources call bullshit on what you keep hassling strangers about.
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*82.
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.