Firstly, it’s hilarious that you’ve gone back to a previous comment, thus ignoring the dozen textbook references I posted 😂
That would mean 2(8*1)2 is 128
That’s right, because we don’t Distribute over Multiplication (and Division), only Addition and Subtraction (it’s right there in the Property’s name - The Distributive Property of Multiplication over Addition). Welcome to you proving why a(bc)² is a special case 😂 I’ve been telling you this whole time that a(b+c) and a(bc) aren’t the same, and you finally stumbled on why they aren’t the same 😂
You are the one saying it’s not 2a2b2,
No I’m not. I never said that, liar. I’ve been telling you the whole time that it is a special case 🙄 (upon which you claimed there was no special case)
because you think it’s 22a2b2,
No I don’t. That’s why you can’t quote me ever saying that 🙄
exponents are where you are blatantly full of shit
and there are no exponents in a(b+c) and all this stuff about exponents is you being blatantly full of shit 🙄
Source: your ass.
No, this meme
Notice that there are no exponents? 😂
Every published example disagrees
says person who came back to this post to avoid this post which is full of published examples that agree with me - weird that 😂
that up-to-date Maths textbook must be wrong
And I also pointed out why that was wrong here. i.e. the post that you have avoided replying to 😂
You alone are correct on this accursed Earth
No, all textbooks as well, except those which are using the old-fashioned and wrong syntax of (a+b)c, not to mention most calculators as well (only Texas Instruments is still doing it wrongly).
Page 31 of the PDF… right
Before the pages I already posted in the post that you are avoiding replying to 😂
where you’ve dishonestly twisted the “expanding brackets” text. Next page: “3(x+y) means 3*(x+y).”
means not equals, Mr. Person Who Is Actually Dishonestly Twisting The Words, as proven by the exercises on Page 282, answers on Page 577, which are also in the post that you are avoiding replying to 😂
Page 129 of that PDF, exercise 5, question 14: simplify 2(e4)2. The answer on PDF page 414 is 2e8
That’s right
Your bullshit would say 4e8.
Nope. Been telling you the whole time that is a special case, upon which you claimed there was no such special case 😂
if you somehow need further proof of how this actually works
No, I don’t, it’s still a False Equivalence argument 🙄 But if you wanna waste your time on an irrelevant point (which you seem determined to do), go ahead, don’t let me stop you, but that’s an admission that you are wrong about a(b+c)
Damn dude, that’s five textbooks you chose saying you’re full of shit
Nope! None of them have said a(b+c)=ax(b+c), they have all said a(b+c)=(ab+ac), which is why you’re avoiding replying to the post of mine which quotes them all 🙄
Firstly, it’s hilarious that you’ve gone back to a previous comment, thus ignoring the dozen textbook references I posted 😂
That’s right, because we don’t Distribute over Multiplication (and Division), only Addition and Subtraction (it’s right there in the Property’s name - The Distributive Property of Multiplication over Addition). Welcome to you proving why a(bc)² is a special case 😂 I’ve been telling you this whole time that a(b+c) and a(bc) aren’t the same, and you finally stumbled on why they aren’t the same 😂
No I’m not. I never said that, liar. I’ve been telling you the whole time that it is a special case 🙄 (upon which you claimed there was no special case)
No I don’t. That’s why you can’t quote me ever saying that 🙄
and there are no exponents in a(b+c) and all this stuff about exponents is you being blatantly full of shit 🙄
No, this meme
Notice that there are no exponents? 😂
says person who came back to this post to avoid this post which is full of published examples that agree with me - weird that 😂
And I also pointed out why that was wrong here. i.e. the post that you have avoided replying to 😂
No, all textbooks as well, except those which are using the old-fashioned and wrong syntax of (a+b)c, not to mention most calculators as well (only Texas Instruments is still doing it wrongly).
Before the pages I already posted in the post that you are avoiding replying to 😂
means not equals, Mr. Person Who Is Actually Dishonestly Twisting The Words, as proven by the exercises on Page 282, answers on Page 577, which are also in the post that you are avoiding replying to 😂
That’s right
Nope. Been telling you the whole time that is a special case, upon which you claimed there was no such special case 😂
No, I don’t, it’s still a False Equivalence argument 🙄 But if you wanna waste your time on an irrelevant point (which you seem determined to do), go ahead, don’t let me stop you, but that’s an admission that you are wrong about a(b+c)
Nope! None of them have said a(b+c)=ax(b+c), they have all said a(b+c)=(ab+ac), which is why you’re avoiding replying to the post of mine which quotes them all 🙄