By all means, humiliate yourself by splitting that hair
I’ll take that as an admission that you’re wrong then, given you can’t defend your wrong interpretation of it (which you would know is wrong if you had read more than 1 paragraph of the book!) 😂
That’s convention for notation, not a distinction between a*b and ab both being the product of a and b.
You have to slap 1/ in front of things and pretend that’s the subject, to avoid these textbooks telling you, ab means a*b. They are the same thing. They are one term.
says person who only read 2 sentences out of the book, the book which proves the statement wrong 😂
a*b and ab both being the product of a and b
Nope, only ab is the product, and you would already know that if you had read more than 2 sentences 😂
You have to slap 1/ in front of things and pretend that’s the subject
“identically equal”, which you claimed it means, means it will give the same answer regardless of what’s put in front of it. You claimed it was identical, I proved it wasn’t.
avoid these textbooks telling you
It kills you actually, but you didn’t read any of the parts which prove you are wrong 🙄just cherry pick a couple of sentences out of a whole chapter about order of operations 🙄
They are the same thing. They are one term
Nope! If they were both 1 term then they would give the same answer 🙄
1/ab=1/(axb)=1/(2x3)=1/6
1/axb=1/2x3=3/2=1.5
Welcome to why axb is not listed as a Term on Page 37, which if you had read all the pages up until that point, you would understand why it’s not 1 Term 🙄
‘If a+b equals b+a, why is 1/a+b different from 1/b+a?’
Because they’re not identically equal 🙄 Welcome to you almost getting the point
ab means a*b
means, isn’t equal
That’s why 1/ab=1/(a*b)
Nope, it’s because ab==(axb) <== note the brackets duuuhhh!!! 😂
But we could just as easily say 1/ab = (1/a)*b
No you can’t! 😂
because that distinction is only convention
Nope! An actual rule, as found not only in Maths textbooks (see above), but in all textbooks - Physics, Engineering, Chemistry, etc. - they all obey ab==(axb)
None of which excuses your horseshit belief that a(b)2
says person who thinks “means” and “equals” mean the same thing 😂
By all means, humiliate yourself by splitting that hair.
I’ll take that as an admission that you’re wrong then, given you can’t defend your wrong interpretation of it (which you would know is wrong if you had read more than 1 paragraph of the book!) 😂
This is you admitting there’s no difference. You insist they’re not the same. How?
Not difficult, I already did in another post. If a=2 and b=3…
1/ab=1/(axb)=1/(2x3)=1/6
1/axb=1/2x3=3/2=1.5
That’s convention for notation, not a distinction between a*b and ab both being the product of a and b.
You have to slap 1/ in front of things and pretend that’s the subject, to avoid these textbooks telling you, ab means a*b. They are the same thing. They are one term.
Nope, still rules
says person who only read 2 sentences out of the book, the book which proves the statement wrong 😂
Nope, only ab is the product, and you would already know that if you had read more than 2 sentences 😂
“identically equal”, which you claimed it means, means it will give the same answer regardless of what’s put in front of it. You claimed it was identical, I proved it wasn’t.
It kills you actually, but you didn’t read any of the parts which prove you are wrong 🙄just cherry pick a couple of sentences out of a whole chapter about order of operations 🙄
Nope! If they were both 1 term then they would give the same answer 🙄
1/ab=1/(axb)=1/(2x3)=1/6
1/axb=1/2x3=3/2=1.5
Welcome to why axb is not listed as a Term on Page 37, which if you had read all the pages up until that point, you would understand why it’s not 1 Term 🙄
‘If a+b equals b+a, why is 1/a+b different from 1/b+a?’
ab means a*b.
That’s why 1/ab=1/(a*b).
But we could just as easily say 1/ab = (1/a)*b, because that distinction is only convention.
None of which excuses your horseshit belief that a(b)2 occasionally means (ab)2.
Because they’re not identically equal 🙄 Welcome to you almost getting the point
means, isn’t equal
Nope, it’s because ab==(axb) <== note the brackets duuuhhh!!! 😂
No you can’t! 😂
Nope! An actual rule, as found not only in Maths textbooks (see above), but in all textbooks - Physics, Engineering, Chemistry, etc. - they all obey ab==(axb)
says person still ignoring all these textbooks