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
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
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.
Nope! I cite Maths textbookshere, here, here, here, here, here, here, a calculator here, need I go on? 🙄 There’s plenty more of them
assuming you’re correct and smarter than everyone who programs solvers,
That’s hilarious that you think random programmers know more about Maths than a Maths professional 😂
even those who are known to be respectable and used extensively in academia
As I already stated, everyone knows the complete opposite of that about them. It’s hilarious that you’re trying to prop up places that give both right and wrong answers to the exact same expression as somehow being “respectable”. 😂 And you’ll see at the end of that thread - if you decide to read it this time - the poof that academia does not use it (because they know it spits out random answers)
Nothing’s been established cause you’ve cited sources that don’t support your argument
BWAHAHAHAAH! Like?? 😂
repeating them again and again won’t make it different.
That’s right, the Maths textbooks are still as correct about it as the first time I cited them.
continuing this is useless
Well it is when you don’t bother reading the links, which you’ve just proven is the case
I’ve read everything you’ve posted, but the problem is you’re interpreting the texts in such a way that they support your flawed argument, conveniently ignoring what they’re actually saying, such as “if” statements.
Even this textbook that you yourself posted goes against what you’re saying if you just bother to look at it outside of your tunnel vision:
You’ve read every textbook, and looked at the calculator answer? Yeah nah, you clearly haven’t.
you’re interpreting the texts in such a way that they support your flawed argument
Says person who can’t come up with any textbooks that support their argument. 😂 BTW if you had looked at the calculator, you would’ve seen it does it exactly as I have described - 6/2(1+2)=6/2(3)=6/(2x3)=6/6=1, not, you know, 6/2(1+2)=3(3)=9, which is your flawed argument
conveniently ignoring what they’re actually saying, such as “if” statements
Says person ignoring this “if” statement which says you literally must distribute if you want to remove the brackets.
Even this textbook that you yourself posted goes against what you’re saying
No it doesn’t! 😂
Notice something?
Yes, you ignored the Distribution in the last step 😂 I have no idea what you think is significant about the first 2 steps, other than you were trying to draw attention away from the Distribution in the last step
Here’s another one (different authors) that does the same thing, which you would’ve seen if you had actually read all the textbooks I posted, but they explicitly spell out what they’re doing as they’re doing it…
Yep I have looked at all you’ve posted, I say you’re wrong because what you’ve posted says things that are true, but you’re reading them wrong. For example your last image clearly says a number next to a bracket means the content of the bracket must be multiplied with said number. Nowhere there does anybody speak of distribution taking precedence over other operations. In fact, nowhere in all sources I can find does it say so. Wonder why all screenshots you post use convoluted wording and wonder why you pop up everywhere arguing the same thing and keep getting downvoted? At some point you need to understand that if one old-ass calculator and selective reading of cherry picked passages is all the proof you have, when all modern calculators and algebra solvers go against you, maybe it’s time to reconsider.
Juxtaposition taking precedence over other multiplications I can understand and it’s an arguable point. Distribution being a mandatory step and taking precedence over even exponents is just silly and unfortunately wrong.
Also another thing: you’re a math teacher as you’ve said, and consistently ask if I think “random programmers” know more about algebra than you. What I say to that is I’ve met plenty of teachers who are wrong about things in their own fields, for one. And also, people defining the rules of all those algebra solvers aren’t the programmers, as you’d know if you looked a bit into product development. It’s domain experts, who also define tests and receive feedback on the software’s performance and errors. I’m sure (lol) you’ve sent feedback to them, and they probably looked at it and decided you’re wrong. As well all have.
says the person who is actually reading them wrong, who is unable to cite any example of me reading it wrong
clearly says a number next to a bracket means the content of the bracket must be multiplied with said number
the content of the bracket - you just quoted that yourself and still completely missed what that means 😂
Nowhere there does anybody speak of distribution taking precedence over other operations
BRACKETS has precedence over everything 😂 So here we have an example of you reading it wrong
nowhere in all sources I can find does it say so
And can you find any source which says Multiplication takes precedence over Brackets? No. Another example of you reading it wrong
Wonder why all screenshots you post use convoluted wording
They don’t use “convoluted wording”! 🤣
“the contents OF THE BRACKETS should be multiplied”
“everything IN THE BRACKET should be multiplied by that number”
Yet another example of you reading it wrong 😂
wonder why you pop up everywhere arguing the same thing and keep getting downvoted?
The only person downvoting me is the person replying, whereas the others are getting downvoted by others as well 🙄
At some point you need to understand that if one old-ass calculator
My brand new Casio calculator gives the same answer! 😂 They all do now, except for Texas Instruments - the only one stubbornly still doing it wrongly
selective reading of cherry picked passages
Sure, I’m “cherry picking” the sections of textbooks about Distribution. Do you want me to post something random about a different topic? 😂 BTW, noted that you haven’t come up with any textbooks that agree with you
all the proof you have
And it is indeed proof.
when all modern calculators
Agree with me (except for Texas Instruments)
algebra solvers
Written by programmers who have forgotten the rules of Maths, and as pointed out by many people in forums.
maybe it’s time to reconsider
And yet, here you are not reconsidering 🙄
Juxtaposition taking precedence over other multiplications I can understand
Because BRACKETS - ab=(axb) BY DEFINITION 😂
it’s an arguable point
And is also the exact same rule 🙄
Distribution being a mandatory step
There’s a reason it’s called The Distributive Law
taking precedence over even exponents is just silly
BRACKETS taking precedence over Exponents is “silly”?? 🤣🤣🤣
and unfortunately wrong
BRACKETS taking precedence over Exponents is “unfortunately wrong”?? 🤣🤣🤣
What I say to that is I’ve met plenty of teachers who are wrong about things in their own fields,
You think they’re wrong you mean, person who is saying Brackets before Exponents is “wrong” 🤣🤣🤣
people defining the rules of all those algebra solvers aren’t the programmers,
Yes they are! That’s why they give wrong answers 😂 I told one he was wrong and he went and fixed it, being the one who had programmed it that way 🙄
as you’d know if you looked a bit into product development.
I know they are because I have spoken directly to them 😂 Maybe try asking some yourself, before making completely wrong statements
It’s domain experts
No it isn’t, as proven by personal experience. You know who uses domain experts? calculator manufacturers. 😂 They have considerably more riding on it being right or not.
who also define tests and receive feedback on the software’s performance and errors
You know there’s a whole bunch of programmers who don’t bother even defining tests to begin with, right??
I’m sure (lol) you’ve sent feedback to them
Yep!
they probably looked at it and decided you’re wrong
Except for the ones who did change it. The ones who claimed I was wrong, quoted Google - who have also been told they’re wrong by many people -and not Maths textbooks 🙄
As well all have.
says person who did nothing of the sort, and lied about such things as "all modern calculators " being against me (they aren’t, if you had actually tried some), Exponents having precedence over Brackets, etc.
Please post a source that gives a different answer to this expression, I’ll wait.
There’s of course programmers that implement their own projects, but for big monetized products that’s no longer the case. I’m in the software industry myself and have worked extensively in product development.
Sure bro you have multiple downvotes in many posts, I’m sure it’s the person you’re arguing with logging in with multiple accounts lol.
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’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.
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
Yep, all known to give wrong order of operations answers
Well, it’s not me, so…
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, I am correct, because Distribution is part of the Brackets step, as we have already established…
Yes
No, you haven’t finished solving the Brackets yet, which you must do before proceeding…
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
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.
Nope! I cite Maths textbooks here, here, here, here, here, here, here, a calculator here, need I go on? 🙄 There’s plenty more of them
That’s hilarious that you think random programmers know more about Maths than a Maths professional 😂
As I already stated, everyone knows the complete opposite of that about them. It’s hilarious that you’re trying to prop up places that give both right and wrong answers to the exact same expression as somehow being “respectable”. 😂 And you’ll see at the end of that thread - if you decide to read it this time - the poof that academia does not use it (because they know it spits out random answers)
BWAHAHAHAAH! Like?? 😂
That’s right, the Maths textbooks are still as correct about it as the first time I cited them.
Well it is when you don’t bother reading the links, which you’ve just proven is the case
I’ve read everything you’ve posted, but the problem is you’re interpreting the texts in such a way that they support your flawed argument, conveniently ignoring what they’re actually saying, such as “if” statements.
Even this textbook that you yourself posted goes against what you’re saying if you just bother to look at it outside of your tunnel vision:
Notice something?
You’ve read every textbook, and looked at the calculator answer? Yeah nah, you clearly haven’t.
Says person who can’t come up with any textbooks that support their argument. 😂 BTW if you had looked at the calculator, you would’ve seen it does it exactly as I have described - 6/2(1+2)=6/2(3)=6/(2x3)=6/6=1, not, you know, 6/2(1+2)=3(3)=9, which is your flawed argument
Says person ignoring this “if” statement which says you literally must distribute if you want to remove the brackets.
No it doesn’t! 😂
Yes, you ignored the Distribution in the last step 😂 I have no idea what you think is significant about the first 2 steps, other than you were trying to draw attention away from the Distribution in the last step
Here’s another one (different authors) that does the same thing, which you would’ve seen if you had actually read all the textbooks I posted, but they explicitly spell out what they’re doing as they’re doing it…
Yep I have looked at all you’ve posted, I say you’re wrong because what you’ve posted says things that are true, but you’re reading them wrong. For example your last image clearly says a number next to a bracket means the content of the bracket must be multiplied with said number. Nowhere there does anybody speak of distribution taking precedence over other operations. In fact, nowhere in all sources I can find does it say so. Wonder why all screenshots you post use convoluted wording and wonder why you pop up everywhere arguing the same thing and keep getting downvoted? At some point you need to understand that if one old-ass calculator and selective reading of cherry picked passages is all the proof you have, when all modern calculators and algebra solvers go against you, maybe it’s time to reconsider.
Juxtaposition taking precedence over other multiplications I can understand and it’s an arguable point. Distribution being a mandatory step and taking precedence over even exponents is just silly and unfortunately wrong.
Also another thing: you’re a math teacher as you’ve said, and consistently ask if I think “random programmers” know more about algebra than you. What I say to that is I’ve met plenty of teachers who are wrong about things in their own fields, for one. And also, people defining the rules of all those algebra solvers aren’t the programmers, as you’d know if you looked a bit into product development. It’s domain experts, who also define tests and receive feedback on the software’s performance and errors. I’m sure (lol) you’ve sent feedback to them, and they probably looked at it and decided you’re wrong. As well all have.
says the person who is actually reading them wrong, who is unable to cite any example of me reading it wrong
the content of the bracket - you just quoted that yourself and still completely missed what that means 😂
BRACKETS has precedence over everything 😂 So here we have an example of you reading it wrong
And can you find any source which says Multiplication takes precedence over Brackets? No. Another example of you reading it wrong
They don’t use “convoluted wording”! 🤣
“the contents OF THE BRACKETS should be multiplied”
“everything IN THE BRACKET should be multiplied by that number”
Yet another example of you reading it wrong 😂
The only person downvoting me is the person replying, whereas the others are getting downvoted by others as well 🙄
My brand new Casio calculator gives the same answer! 😂 They all do now, except for Texas Instruments - the only one stubbornly still doing it wrongly
Sure, I’m “cherry picking” the sections of textbooks about Distribution. Do you want me to post something random about a different topic? 😂 BTW, noted that you haven’t come up with any textbooks that agree with you
And it is indeed proof.
Agree with me (except for Texas Instruments)
Written by programmers who have forgotten the rules of Maths, and as pointed out by many people in forums.
And yet, here you are not reconsidering 🙄
Because BRACKETS - ab=(axb) BY DEFINITION 😂
And is also the exact same rule 🙄
There’s a reason it’s called The Distributive Law
BRACKETS taking precedence over Exponents is “silly”?? 🤣🤣🤣
BRACKETS taking precedence over Exponents is “unfortunately wrong”?? 🤣🤣🤣
You think they’re wrong you mean, person who is saying Brackets before Exponents is “wrong” 🤣🤣🤣
Yes they are! That’s why they give wrong answers 😂 I told one he was wrong and he went and fixed it, being the one who had programmed it that way 🙄
I know they are because I have spoken directly to them 😂 Maybe try asking some yourself, before making completely wrong statements
No it isn’t, as proven by personal experience. You know who uses domain experts? calculator manufacturers. 😂 They have considerably more riding on it being right or not.
You know there’s a whole bunch of programmers who don’t bother even defining tests to begin with, right??
Yep!
Except for the ones who did change it. The ones who claimed I was wrong, quoted Google - who have also been told they’re wrong by many people -and not Maths textbooks 🙄
says person who did nothing of the sort, and lied about such things as "all modern calculators " being against me (they aren’t, if you had actually tried some), Exponents having precedence over Brackets, etc.
Here you go:
Please post a source that gives a different answer to this expression, I’ll wait.
There’s of course programmers that implement their own projects, but for big monetized products that’s no longer the case. I’m in the software industry myself and have worked extensively in product development.
Sure bro you have multiple downvotes in many posts, I’m sure it’s the person you’re arguing with logging in with multiple accounts lol.
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)
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.