moriquende comments on I dunno

[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (15 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago (14 children)

Here you go

Yep, that's an old Casio model, Mr. "All modern calculators", proving yet again that you can't back up your own statements 😂

Please post a source that gives a different answer to this expression, I’ll wait.

No need to wait - just scroll back through this thread and look at all the sources I already posted 🙄

for big monetized products that’s no longer the case

You know none of the calculators you're referring to are commercial right? They're all free to use, and that tells you how much effort was put into them. The only e-calc I've ever seen give a correct answer is MathGPT, which is indeed commercial now (I tried it before it went commercial), so we have a commercial e-calc giving the correct answer, and all the free ones giving the wrong answer 😂

I’m in the software industry myself

So am I in case you didn't notice 😂

you have multiple downvotes in many posts

I've never seen more than 2 on any, Mr. Needs To Exaggerate Because Has No Actual Evidence Of Being Right 😂

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (13 children)

You realize a calculator doesn't need to be a dedicated hardware, right? Windows calculator, MacOS calculator, Android calculator, and all web-based calculators count as well.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Wolfram Alpha is a commercial product (with a free-tier as is usual nowadays) and uses the same engine as Mathematica, which is used extensively in industry, academic institutions, and government agencies.

None of your sources has exponents in them, and that's very convenient for your mistake of mixing up juxtaposition and your invented rule.

Btw, ask yourself this as well: why would your invented interpretation of distributive law be necessary at all? It brings no benefit to the table at all. Juxtaposition arguably does, because it allows shorter notation, but your invention doesn't.

Please find a calculator that gives a result different to 128 for the expression 2(3+5)². You won't be able to, because it's the only correct answer. If you don't post a reproducible example of a solver anywhere coming to a different solution, I'll consider your argument defeated and ignore further engagement from your part. Have a nice day!

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago (12 children)

You realize a calculator doesn’t need to be a dedicated hardware, right?

You realise the calculator manufacturers have much more riding on their calculators being correct, right? 😂

Windows calculator, MacOS calculator, Android calculator, and all web-based calculators count as well.

Nope. Programmed by... programmers, who aren't earning any money from the calculator, and put the corresponding amount of effort into it.

You have no clue what you’re talking about.

says someone who just claimed that e-calcs count as much as actual, buy from a store, calculators 🤣

Alpha is a commercial product (with a free-tier as is usual nowadays)

Also well known to give wrong answers

uses the same engine as Mathematica, which is used extensively in industry, academic institutions

Nope! Academia warns against using it

None of your sources has exponents in them

In other words, you're admitting to trying to deflect from what's in Maths textbooks! 😂

that’s very convenient for your mistake of mixing up juxtaposition and your invented rule

It's the same rule, duh! Here it is in a textbook from more than 100 years ago when everything was still in brackets...

We've since then dropped the brackets from Factors which are a single Term. i.e. (a)(b+c) is now a(b+c), and (a)(b) is now ab. BTW would you like to explain how "my invented rule" appears in a textbook from more than 100 years ago? 🤣

Btw, ask yourself this as well: why would your invented interpretation of distributive law be necessary at all?

It's not invented, it's required as the reverse rule to Factorising, duh 😂 And I don't need to ask myself - as usual, all you have to do is look in Maths textbooks for the reason 😂

It brings no benefit to the table at all.

Being able to reverse the process of Factorising brings no benefit to the table?? 🤣

Juxtaposition arguably does

It's the same thing duh 🤣 ab=(a)(b), a(b+c)=(a)(b+c) notice how they are the same thing, expanding BRACKETS?? 🤣

Maybe you've forgotten about FOIL...

Now, think carefully about this, what happens when b=0, and what happens when d=0, you got it yet?? 🤣

because it allows shorter notation

AKA Factorised Terms and Products 😂

your invention doesn’t.

Again, explain how "my invention" appears in textbooks that are more than 100 years old. I'll wait 🤣

because it’s the only correct answer

Have you noticed yet that everything you think is correct is actually wrong as per Maths textbooks?? 🤣

I’ll consider your argument defeated

says person who has been comprehensively defeated by Maths textbooks and is now trying to deflect away from that 🤣

ignore further engagement from your part

I'll take that as an admission that you're wrong then, having been unable to debunk any Maths textbooks. See ya

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (11 children)

Please find a calculator that gives a result different to 128 for the expression 2(3+5)². Should be easy, no?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago (10 children)

Please find a calculator that gives a result different to 128 for the expression 2(3+5)². Should be easy, no?

Please find a Maths textbook that backs that up as being the correct answer. i.e. Exponents before Brackets. Should be easy, no? 🤣

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (9 children)

Nobody has argued exponents should go before brackets.

I'm saying distribution being mandatory is an invented rule from your part.

No wonder you can't produce such a simple request. I thought you had calculators that work "correctly"?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago (8 children)

Nobody has argued exponents should go before brackets

You did! 😂 You said 2(3+5)²=2(8)²=2(64), which is doing the Exponent when there are still unsolved Brackets 😂

I’m saying distribution being mandatory is an invented rule from your part

You still haven't explained how it's in 19th Century textbooks if I "made it up"! 😂

If you don't remember Roman Numerals either, that's 1898

No wonder you can’t produce such a simple request.

says person who still hasn't produced a single textbook that supports anything that they say, and it's such a simple request 😂

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (7 children)

Unsolved brackets

Solving brackets does not include forced distribution. Juxtaposition means multiplication, and as such, 2(3+5)² is the same as 2*(3+5)², so once the brackets result in 8, they're solved.

Distribution needs to happen if you want to remove the brackets while there are still multiple terms inside, but it's still a part of the multiplication. You can't do it if there is an exponent, which has higher priority.

Your whole argument hangs on the misinterpretation of textbooks. This is what it feels like to argue against Bible fanatics lmao.

Tell you what, provide me a solver that says 2(3+5)² is 256 and you've won, it's so easy no?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

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...

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (5 children)

https://youtu.be/xoZzHMoB5qA

This is a college textbook, and that explains how to solve it.

Another example: https://stemjock.com/STEM%20Books/OpenStax%20CA%202e/Chapter%201/Section%201/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:

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

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! 😂

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If 5(4)^2^ is 5*16 then 2(8)^2^ is 2*64.

I get a free hoagie.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

Don’t move the goalposts

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent