Solving brackets does not include forced distribution
Yes it does! 😂
Juxtaposition means multiplication,
No, it doesn’t. A Product is the result of Multiplication. If a=2 and b=3, axb=ab, 2x3=6, axb=2x3, ab=6. 3(x-y) is 1 term, 3x-3y is 2 terms…
as such, 2(3+5)² is the same as 2*(3+5)²
No it isn’t. 2(3+5)² is 1 term, 2x(3+5)² is 2 terms
so once the brackets result in 8
They don’t - you still have an undistributed coefficient, 2(8)
they’re solved
Not until you’ve Distributed and Simplified they aren’t
Distribution needs to happen if you want to remove the brackets
if you want to remove the brackets, YES, that’s what the Brackets step is for, duh! 😂 The textbook above says to Distribute first, then Simplify.
while there are still multiple terms inside
As in 2(8)=(2x8) and 2(3+5)=(6+10) is multiple Terms inside 😂
it’s still a part of the multiplication
Nope! The Brackets step, duh 😂 You cannot progress until all Brackets have been removed
which has higher priority.
It doesn’t have a higher priority than Brackets! 🤣
Your whole argument hangs on the misinterpretation of textbooks
says person who can’t cite any textbooks that agree with them, so their whole argument hangs on all Maths textbooks are wrong but can’t say why, 😂 wrongly calls Products “Multiplication”, and claimed that I invented a rule that is in an 1898 textbook! 🤣 And has also failed to come up with any alterative “interpretations” of “must” and “Brackets” that don’t mean, you know, must and brackets 😂
This is what it feels like to argue against Bible fanatics
says the Bible fanatic, who in this case can’t even show me what it says in The Bible (Maths textbooks) that agrees with them 😂
provide me a solver that says 2(3+5)² is 256 and you’ve won, it’s so easy no?
provide me a Maths textbook that says 8/2(1+3)=16 and you’ve won, it’s so easy no? 🤣
And in the meantime, here’s one saying it’s 1, because x(x-1) is a single Term…
This is a college textbook, and that explains how to solve it
It’s a college refresher course on high school Maths. They also forgot to cover The Distributive Law, which is not unusual given college Professors don’t actually teach high school Maths.
Another example
From the same refresher course 🙄
Alternatively, here is another example
Which also doesn’t cover The Distributive Law, which isn’t surprising given that chapter isn’t even about order of operations! 😂
In case you can’t find the correct part
Still not about a(b+c). You lot are investing so much effort into such an obvious False Equivalence argument it’s hilarious! 😂
Don’t move the goalposts. I’ve posted textbooks showing that “solving brackets” only applies to the inside, and distribution is part of multiplication and optional.
You’ve said yourself your magic rule is taught in highschool, so a refresher course in college would never ignore it.
Now instead of giving weak excuses, provide your part of the proof. And I’m not talking about multiplication, I want to see anywhere where a distribution is given precedence over an exponent.
I didn’t. You’re the one who has been desperately trying to make a False Equivalence argument between a(b+c) and a(bc)² 🙄
I’ve posted textbooks showing that “solving brackets” only applies to the inside,
No you haven’t. A college refresher isn’t a Maths textbook, and I already pointed out to you that they don’t mention The Distributive Law at all, unlike, you know, high school Maths textbooks 🙄
distribution is part of multiplication
And the high school Maths textbooks I posted prove you are wrong about that 🙄
and optional
And the high school Maths textbooks I posted prove you are wrong about that too, 🙄 unless you think “optional” is a valid interpretation of what “must” means 😂
You’ve said yourself your magic rule is taught in highschool,
Yep
so a refresher course in college would never ignore it
And yet you proved that they did in fact forget about it 🙄
Now instead of giving weak excuses
they say to person who has been backed up by every textbook they posted so far 😂
provide your part of the proof.
Just scroll back dude - they’re all still there, like here for example.
And I’m not talking about multiplication
Well that’ll be a nice change then 😂
I want to see anywhere where a distribution is given precedence over an exponent
Because you are hell bent on making a False Equivalence argument between a(b+c) and a(bc)². I don’t care dude. there is no exponent in the meme. I’ll take that as an admission that you are wrong about a(b+c) then.
Yes it does! 😂
No, it doesn’t. A Product is the result of Multiplication. If a=2 and b=3, axb=ab, 2x3=6, axb=2x3, ab=6. 3(x-y) is 1 term, 3x-3y is 2 terms…
No it isn’t. 2(3+5)² is 1 term, 2x(3+5)² is 2 terms
They don’t - you still have an undistributed coefficient, 2(8)
Not until you’ve Distributed and Simplified they aren’t
if you want to remove the brackets, YES, that’s what the Brackets step is for, duh! 😂 The textbook above says to Distribute first, then Simplify.
As in 2(8)=(2x8) and 2(3+5)=(6+10) is multiple Terms inside 😂
Nope! The Brackets step, duh 😂 You cannot progress until all Brackets have been removed
It doesn’t have a higher priority than Brackets! 🤣
says person who can’t cite any textbooks that agree with them, so their whole argument hangs on all Maths textbooks are wrong but can’t say why, 😂 wrongly calls Products “Multiplication”, and claimed that I invented a rule that is in an 1898 textbook! 🤣 And has also failed to come up with any alterative “interpretations” of “must” and “Brackets” that don’t mean, you know, must and brackets 😂
says the Bible fanatic, who in this case can’t even show me what it says in The Bible (Maths textbooks) that agrees with them 😂
provide me a Maths textbook that says 8/2(1+3)=16 and you’ve won, it’s so easy no? 🤣
And in the meantime, here’s one saying it’s 1, because x(x-1) is a single Term…
https://youtu.be/xoZzHMoB5qA
This is a college textbook, and that explains how to solve it.
Another example: https://stemjock.com/STEM Books/OpenStax CA 2e/Chapter 1/Section 1/OSCACh1s1e32.pdf
Alternatively, here is another example: https://www.kingphilip.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Supplemental_Topics_from_Algebra_1.pdf
In case you can’t find the correct part:
It’s a college refresher course on high school Maths. They also forgot to cover The Distributive Law, which is not unusual given college Professors don’t actually teach high school Maths.
From the same refresher course 🙄
Which also doesn’t cover The Distributive Law, which isn’t surprising given that chapter isn’t even about order of operations! 😂
Still not about a(b+c). You lot are investing so much effort into such an obvious False Equivalence argument it’s hilarious! 😂
Don’t move the goalposts. I’ve posted textbooks showing that “solving brackets” only applies to the inside, and distribution is part of multiplication and optional.
You’ve said yourself your magic rule is taught in highschool, so a refresher course in college would never ignore it.
Now instead of giving weak excuses, provide your part of the proof. And I’m not talking about multiplication, I want to see anywhere where a distribution is given precedence over an exponent.
If 5(4)2 is 5*16 then 2(8)2 is 2*64.
I get a free hoagie.
I didn’t. You’re the one who has been desperately trying to make a False Equivalence argument between a(b+c) and a(bc)² 🙄
No you haven’t. A college refresher isn’t a Maths textbook, and I already pointed out to you that they don’t mention The Distributive Law at all, unlike, you know, high school Maths textbooks 🙄
And the high school Maths textbooks I posted prove you are wrong about that 🙄
And the high school Maths textbooks I posted prove you are wrong about that too, 🙄 unless you think “optional” is a valid interpretation of what “must” means 😂
Yep
And yet you proved that they did in fact forget about it 🙄
they say to person who has been backed up by every textbook they posted so far 😂
Just scroll back dude - they’re all still there, like here for example.
Well that’ll be a nice change then 😂
Because you are hell bent on making a False Equivalence argument between a(b+c) and a(bc)². I don’t care dude. there is no exponent in the meme. I’ll take that as an admission that you are wrong about a(b+c) then.
Who are you talking to?
All I said was: If 5(4)2 is 5*16, like this college math textbook shows, then 2(8)2 is 2*64.
Every published example will agree this is how it works. None, at any level of education, will agree with your bullshit.