The P in PEMDAS means to solve everything within parentheses first; there is no “distribution” step or rule that says multiplying without a visible operator other than parentheses comes first. So yes, 36 is valid here. It’s mostly because PEMDAS never shows up in the same context as this sort of multiplication or large fractions
Are you under the impression that atomizing your opponents statements and making a comment about each part individually without addressing the actual point (how those facts fit together) is a good debate tactic? Because it seems like all you’ve done is confuse yourself about what I was saying and make arguments that don’t address it. Never mind that some of those micro-rebuttals aren’t even correct.
But to make a pointless effort to address your actual point, yes distribution exists, no it is not a step in PE(MD)(AS). Again, you have not understood my point because you categorically fail to engage with any argument. I don’t think you even understand what it means to do so. I will not respond further to either thread.
Parentheses means evaluating the things inside the parentheses you nimrod
Only if you’re still in Elementary school. How old are you anyway? Here’s a high school Algebra book, you know, after students have been taught The Distributive Law…
The P in PEMDAS means to solve everything within parentheses first; there is no “distribution” step or rule that says multiplying without a visible operator other than parentheses comes first. So yes, 36 is valid here. It’s mostly because PEMDAS never shows up in the same context as this sort of multiplication or large fractions
and without a(b+c)=(ab+ac), now solve (ab+ac)
It’s a LAW of Maths actually, The Distributive Law.
It’s not “Multiplying”, it’s Distributing, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)
No it isn’t. To get 36 you have disobeyed The Distributive Law, thus it is a wrong answer
people like you try to gaslight others that there’s no such thing as The Distributive Law
Are you under the impression that atomizing your opponents statements and making a comment about each part individually without addressing the actual point (how those facts fit together) is a good debate tactic? Because it seems like all you’ve done is confuse yourself about what I was saying and make arguments that don’t address it. Never mind that some of those micro-rebuttals aren’t even correct.
I did address the actual point - see Maths textbooks
I’m not confused at all. I’m the one who knows the difference between Distribution and Multiplication.
You lied about there being no such thing as “the Distribution step” (Brackets), proven wrong by the textbooks
Textbooks talking about The Distributive Law totally addresses your lie that no such step exists.
You think Maths textbooks aren’t correct?? 😂
I have said why this style of debate is bad in greater detail here: https://lemmy.world/post/39377635/21030374
But to make a pointless effort to address your actual point, yes distribution exists, no it is not a step in PE(MD)(AS). Again, you have not understood my point because you categorically fail to engage with any argument. I don’t think you even understand what it means to do so. I will not respond further to either thread.
Which I debunked here
So… you’re saying the “P” step in PEMDAS isn’t a step in PEMDAS?? This is hilarious given you were just talking about contradictions 😂
Maybe because saying the “P” step in PEMDAS isn’t a step in PEMDAS makes no sense at all 😂
No, I comprehensively debunked all of your points and deflections. 😂
says person who keeps avoiding the textbook screenshots and worked examples proving them wrong
Yay! Don’t let the door hit you on the way out 😂
Parentheses means evaluating the things inside the parentheses you nimrod
Only if you’re still in Elementary school. How old are you anyway? Here’s a high school Algebra book, you know, after students have been taught The Distributive Law…