b*c is one term
No it isn't! 😂
say you’re full of shit.
says person who just proved they're full of shit about what constitutes a Term 😂
If you can simplify before distributing - and the PDFs you spam say you can
They say you can do that when there is Addition or Subtraction inside the Brackets. They also say you cannot Distribute over Multiplication, at all
then there is no difference
There is no difference between Addition and Multiplication?? 😂
You made it the fuck up
And yet, there it is in textbooks that were written before I was even born 😂
2(n)2 is 2n2 whether n=a+b or n=a*b=ab
Nope! a(b+c)=(ab+ac). a(bxc)=abc
If you want to square the 2, that’s (2n)2.
...or 2²xn², or 2(½n+½n)²
It’s not about the multiply sign, or grouping, or division
Yes it is! 😂 If there's a Multiply or a Divide, you cannot Distribute.
You fooled yourself into saying 2=1
Not me! 😂
Sorry but there is no math government that can enforce rules
Maths textbooks do. Try looking in some
the order of operations isn’t intrinsic either
Yes they are! 😂
It is just something people agreed upon volununtarily, aka a convention
Nope. Literally proven rules
I tried Wolfram Alpha, Google, and others, and they all return 128
Yep, all known to give wrong order of operations answers
So either you’re wrong
Well, it's not me, so...
all people who make these tools professionally are wrong
That's right. Welcome to programmers writing Maths apps without checking that they have their Maths right first. BTW, in some cases it's as bad as one of their calculators saying 2+3x4=20! 😂
To be clear, the reason you’re wrong is because distribution is not part of the brackets step
To be clear, I am correct, because Distribution is part of the Brackets step, as we have already established...
Brackets are solved before exponents,
Yes
resulting in 2(8)²
No, you haven't finished solving the Brackets yet, which you must do before proceeding...
Remove the brackets and then it’s 2*8²
Nope! We have already established that you cannot remove the brackets if you haven't Distributed yet...
So what we actually get is...
2(8)²=(2x8)²=16²
and now that I have removed the Brackets, I can now do the exponent,,,
16²=256
Welcome to you finding the answer to 2x(3+5)² - where the 2 is separate to the brackets, separated from them by the multiply sign - rather than 2(3+5)², which has no multiply sign, and therefore the 2 must be Distributed
Arguably, there is no objective truth
Yes there is, just look in Maths textbooks
since the symbols and rules of mathematics are assigned arbitrarily
The signs are, the rules aren't.
are basically a social contract, just like language!
Nope and nope. It's a tool for calculating things, nothing like a language at all.
no objective meaning of “objective”
There is, in a dictionary, just like the rules of Maths are in Maths textbooks
8÷2×(2+2)
But that's not the same thing as 8÷2(2+2). 2x(2+2) is 2 Terms, 2(2+2) is 1 Term. 8÷2×(2+2)=16 ((2+2) is in the numerator), 8÷2(2+2)=1 (2(2+2) is in the denominator)
if you feel that it’s your personal mission to generate traffic for a particular channel on a lemmy instance
Oh! One last fact check on your false claims - I don't even post on 1 instance! P.S. take note of the upvotes.
dead, as it was expected to be
Ah! Now I see why you're attacking - trying to prove you were "right". You weren't, you were wrong.
it shows how there is no consensus
Used to not be. Except for Texas Instruments all the others reverted to doing it correctly now - I have no idea why Texas Instruments persists with doing it wrong. As you noted, Sharp has always done it correctly.
There really is no agreed upon standard even amongst experts
Yes there is. It's taught in literally every Year 7-8 Maths textbook (but apparently Texas Instruments don't care about that).
Nope! bc is the product of b and c - it's right there in the textbook! 😂
Says person yet again who has proven they are full of shit about the definition of Terms 😂