I haven’t ignored anything you said.
You've ignored everything I've said about Wikipedia.
I’m telling you that if you have a problem with those that you should contact them to fix them
and you have again ignored what I told you about them 🙄
Go tell Berkeley I did that
What for? They don't care if you're Mathematically illiterate
I did read everything you said
Clearly you didn't, given you keep telling me to take it up with Harvard/Wiki
enact the change you want to see in Wikipedia
See?? There you go again ignoring what I told you about Wikipedia 🙄
Nope, that’s wrong
You think Maths textbooks are wrong?? 😂
See https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=10%2F2%282%2B3%29 for reference
See Maths textbooks for reference 😂
But factorised terms are multiplications,
No, they're Distribution done in the Brackets step, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), now solve (ab+ac)
a(b+c) = a*(b+c)
Nope! a(b+c)=(ab+ac). 1/a(b+c)=1/(ab+ac), but 1/ax(b+c)=(b+c)/a.
23+25=16
(2x3+2x5) actually, or you'll get the wrong answer when it follows a Division sign. See previous point
The P in PEMDAS means to solve everything within parentheses first
and without a(b+c)=(ab+ac), now solve (ab+ac)
there is no “distribution” step or rule
It's a LAW of Maths actually, The Distributive Law.
that says multiplying without a visible operator
It's not "Multiplying", it's Distributing, a(b+c)=(ab+ac)
So yes, 36 is valid here
No it isn't. To get 36 you have disobeyed The Distributive Law, thus it is a wrong answer
It’s mostly because
people like you try to gaslight others that there's no such thing as The Distributive Law
the original question was arithmetic
No, it's actually Algebra. There is no a(b+c) in Arithmetic
You are one of them bc you do not know what an equation is.
You are one of the people who doesn't know what a(b+c) is
There is no algebra here
Yes there is, 5(8-5).
This is arithmetic
There's no a(b+c) in Arithmetic
Depends on the language
No it doesn't
that there was a multiplication there since it isn’t explicit
There isn't a Multiplication there, only Addition and Brackets, and Subtraction inside Brackets. It's never Multiplication unless there is a Multiplication sign.
If you read the wikipedia article
...which isn't a Maths textbook!
also stating the distributive law, literally in the first sentence
Except what it states is the Distributive property, not The Distributive Law. If I call a Koala a Koala Bear, that doesn't mean it's a bear - it just means I used the wrong name. And again, not a Maths textbook - whoever wrote that demonstrably doesn't know the difference between the property and the law.
This is something you learn in elementary school
No it isn't. This is a year 7 topic. In Primary School they are only given bracketed terms without a coefficient (thus don't need to know The Distributive Law).
be assured that I am sufficiently qualified
No, I'm not assured of that when you're quoting wikipedia instead of Maths textbooks, and don't know the difference between The Distributive Property and The Distributive Law, nor know which grade this is taught to.
Wikipedia is not intrinsically less accurate than maths textbooks
BWAHAHAHAHA! You know how many wrong things I've seen in there? And I'm not even talking about Maths! Ever heard of edit wars? Whatever ends up on the page is whatever the admin believes. Wikipedia is "like an encyclopedia" in the same way that Madonna is like a virgin.
but you are misunderstanding them
And yet you have failed to point out how/why/where. In all of your comments here, you haven't even addressed The Distributive Law at all.
Whether you write it as a(b+c) = ab + ac or as a*(b+c) = ab + ac is insubstantial
And neither of those examples is about The Distributive Law - they are both to do with The Distributive Property (and you wrote the first one wrong anyway - it's a(b+c)=(ab+ac). Premature removal of brackets is how many people end up with the wrong answer).
Add them, obviously 🙄