you’re reading them wrong

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.

Dude you’re not even hitting the right reply buttons anymore

Yes I am

Is that what you do when you’re drunk?

Is that why you think I'm hitting the wrong buttons?

It’d explain leading with ‘nope! I’ve said exactly what you accused me of.’

I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe stop drinking

You keep pretending distribution is different from multiplication

No pretending - is is different - it's why you get different answers to 8/2(1+3) (Distribution) and 8/2x(1+3) (Multiplication) 😂

B 8/2(1+3)=8/(2+6)=8/8

E

DM 8/8=1

AS

B 8/2x(1+3)=8/2x4

E

DM 8/2x4=4x4=16

AS

That’s not Multiplication, it’s Distribution, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), a(b)=(axb).

That's right.

And then posting images that explicitly say the contents of the brackets should be multiplied

The "contents OF THE BRACKETS", done in the BRACKETS step , not the MULTIPLICATION step - there you go quoting proof that I'm correct! 😂

Or that they can be simplified first.

That's right, you can simplify then DISTRIBUTE, both part of the BRACKETS step, and your point is?

B 8/2(1+3)=8/2(4)=8/(2x4)=8/8

E

DM 8/8=1 <== same answer

AS

I am not playing dueling-sources with you

No, because you haven't got any 😂

your own sources call bullshit on what you keep hassling strangers about

says person failing to give a single example of that EVER happenning 😂

I'll take that as an admission of being wrong then. Thanks for playing

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’ve read everything you’ve posted

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...

5(17) means they didn’t distribute 5(3+14) into 53+514

That's right, they Distributed the 5(17) into (5x17), and your point is?

These textbooks unambiguously disagree

With you, yes, and your point is?

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 😂

Lmao citing yourself

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

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

Sorry, mate, TLDR

I'll take that as an admission of being wrong then

I skimmed through it, I’m glad you learned some new concepts

I've no idea whose comments you skimmed through, but clearly not mine. I've been saying the same thing from start to finish, and you eventually contradicted yourself 😂

you’re then trying to turn it around and pretend like I didn’t understand something

says someone trying to pretend he did 😂

You incompetent fraud, that’s a different person

That would be because you are replying to my reply to them and not my reply to you, which makes you the incompetent fraud 😂

It’s easy to lose track when literally everyone is calling out your bullshit

says someone who actually lost track and is replying to my reply to someone else 😂

Here’s you quoting a textbook that says to solve inside the brackets first, even without a mulitply sign.

In other words, The Distributive Law, as I've been saying all along, yes, and your point is?

Here’s you quoting a textbook that says you must do the opposite of that.

Nope! Says the exact same thing - Distribute BEFORE REMOVING BRACKETS which is exactly what the previous one did. I have no idea why you think they contradict each other 😂

And as a bonus, here’s you getting 2(3+5)2 wrong.

Nope! Getting it right, Brackets before exponents, as per the order of operations rules, found in Maths textbooks 😂

I am looking for how to politely contact your instance’s admins about your behavior.

Because there's something wrong with fact checking?? 😂 Students usually appreciate finding out where they went wrong, but not you, obviously, and somehow that's an issue for an admin?? 😂

Calls me a liar, then says exactly what I said they think

Nope! I never said you get the wrong answer with 3(3) - noted you were unable to show where I supposedly said that - so no, I did not say what you said I think 🙄

Exponents come after brackets

That's right

so I’m curious to see how you solve that with your logic

Ummm, you do the brackets and then the exponent. Not sure what you find unclear about that

It has an obvious correct solution

The one where you do the brackets before the exponent

which is 128

Nope! You can only get that by doing the exponent before the brackets, which is against the order of operations rules. Or did you wrongly add a multiply sign before the brackets - that also yields a different answer

you need to distribute in the brackets step

That's right, so why did you do the exponent first?

which comes before exponents,

That's right. So why did you do the exponent first?

so let’s see what you do with it

Brackets before exponents, as already established 🙄

Yes, because I finished third grade in primary school

Which would explain why you don't know The Distributive Law, which is taught in Year 7

Do you also expect evidence of gravity?

No, just evidence to back up your claims, but of course you don't have any

Go back and read the comments again

You know reading things again doesn't change what's written right?? No, you don't, since you kept asking me to re-read the part about doing all addition first, thinking somehow that was magically going to change if I read it again 😂

you can find the answers

Nope! Hard to find when you didn't answer, and notably you've not done a screenshot of them, because they don't exist. Weird how you're the only one not able to back up anything of what you've said 😂

Yeah, if you ignore what the text says

which you just did, again, because you know it proves you are wrong 😂 Why are you so afraid to quote it if you think it proves you are right? 😂

However, if you actually read the letters on the screenshot, you’ll find that it does

still say, do all addition first

you’re also incapable of scrolling down to the sources part of the article…?

Well, apparently you are, since there are no Maths textbooks listed in the sources 😂

I never said anything like that

Let's go to the screenshot...

I said that, in terms of the order of operations, addition/subtraction and multiplication/division are equal, because they can be inverted (subtraction into addition of negative numbers, division into multiplication of fractions) to achieve

Nope, see screenshot of you saying they are the same

understand that concept, you can skip subtraction and division from the mnemonics

Now you're just rehashing the same already-debunked rubbish. The whole point of the mnemonics is for those who don't understand, just follow these steps 🙄

prove that what I linked to is wrong

Did that already with the textbooks and worked examples. Maybe you need to read it slowly? 😂

One more time: welcome to the Internet

One more time, welcome to you can't debunk what I said, so you deflect

I like how you’re doing exactly what I’m talking about while still saying I’m incorrect

Nope. Again let's go to the screenshot...

quote one example equation I did here that proves I’m not understanding these concepts. :)

See previous screenshot 😂

But is not reinforced by the mnemonic itself

AS doesn't reinforce doing A before S? 😂

Reading comprehension, remember?

Yep, you've got none. You thought Wikipedia counted as a Maths textbook 😂

I’m glad I was able to explain this to you

I knew it all along - you were the one saying that the brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS), which we've now comprehensively debunked 😂

See above

Yep, you finally proved yourself wrong because the mental gymnastics weren't up to proving that brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS) 😂

when the examples were 2 + 2 and 2 * 2?

No they weren't! You have such a short memory, no wonder you ended up contradicting yourself! 🤣 Let's go to the screenshot...

I’m going to ask you a couple of questions so

you can deflect again 😂

I understand how brackets work and that was a perfectly valid use

Nope, we proved it wasn't 😂

says person who thinks doing addition first for 9-3+2 is 4

Now you’re just inventing things I never said.

Let's go to the screenshot... 😂

It wasn’t 2 - 2, tho

Let's go to the screenshot, again...

Or did you fail to read that correctly too?

Not me. See previous screenshot 😂

Again, I’m glad you’re slowly getting to the point I was making

Nope. your point that brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS) is still wrong, as proven 😂

It’s weird how you’re still phrasing it like I was somehow wrong

says person who proved it was wrong 😂

Considering that’s exactly what I did

Nope! You claimed it was entirely different if you did that. Again, let's go to the screenshot...

You’re so cute when you’re trying to turn this whole argument on its head after realising how silly your initial points were!

says the person actually trying to do that, as proven by the screenshots 😂