Exponents come after brackets, so I’m curious to see how you solve that with your logic lol. It has an obvious correct solution, which is 128, but you need to distribute in the brackets step, which comes before exponents, so let’s see what you do with it lmao.
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 🙄
Ok bro now find an expression solver that verifies your solution. I tried Wolfram Alpha, Google, and others, and they all return 128. So either you’re wrong, or all people who make these tools professionally are wrong. Not trying to be offensive, but I know where I’m putting my money.
To be clear, the reason you’re wrong is because distribution is not part of the brackets step. Brackets are solved before exponents, resulting in 2(8)². Remove the brackets and then it’s 2*8²
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
Lmao citing yourself and assuming you’re correct and smarter than everyone who programs solvers, even those who are known to be respectable and used extensively in academia. Nothing’s been established cause you’ve cited sources that don’t support your argument, and repeating them again and again won’t make it different. Good day bro, continuing this is useless.
Nope! I cite Maths textbookshere, 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
I’ve read everything you’ve posted, but the problem is you’re interpreting the texts in such a way that they support your flawed argument, conveniently ignoring what they’re actually saying, such as “if” statements.
Even this textbook that you yourself posted goes against what you’re saying if you just bother to look at it outside of your tunnel vision:
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…
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 😂
Deflection is the word you’re looking for
So… you’re telling me you don’t know what comes first out of Brackets and Exponents in order of operations? That’s your deflection strategy??
Exponents come after brackets, so I’m curious to see how you solve that with your logic lol. It has an obvious correct solution, which is 128, but you need to distribute in the brackets step, which comes before exponents, so let’s see what you do with it lmao.
That’s right
Ummm, you do the brackets and then the exponent. Not sure what you find unclear about that
The one where you do the brackets before the exponent
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
That’s right, so why did you do the exponent first?
That’s right. So why did you do the exponent first?
Brackets before exponents, as already established 🙄
Ok bro now find an expression solver that verifies your solution. I tried Wolfram Alpha, Google, and others, and they all return 128. So either you’re wrong, or all people who make these tools professionally are wrong. Not trying to be offensive, but I know where I’m putting my money.
To be clear, the reason you’re wrong is because distribution is not part of the brackets step. Brackets are solved before exponents, resulting in 2(8)². Remove the brackets and then it’s 2*8²
Yep, all known to give wrong order of operations answers
Well, it’s not me, so…
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, I am correct, because Distribution is part of the Brackets step, as we have already established…
Yes
No, you haven’t finished solving the Brackets yet, which you must do before proceeding…
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
Lmao citing yourself and assuming you’re correct and smarter than everyone who programs solvers, even those who are known to be respectable and used extensively in academia. Nothing’s been established cause you’ve cited sources that don’t support your argument, and repeating them again and again won’t make it different. Good day bro, continuing this is useless.
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
That’s hilarious that you think random programmers know more about Maths than a Maths professional 😂
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)
BWAHAHAHAAH! Like?? 😂
That’s right, the Maths textbooks are still as correct about it as the first time I cited them.
Well it is when you don’t bother reading the links, which you’ve just proven is the case
I’ve read everything you’ve posted, but the problem is you’re interpreting the texts in such a way that they support your flawed argument, conveniently ignoring what they’re actually saying, such as “if” statements.
Even this textbook that you yourself posted goes against what you’re saying if you just bother to look at it outside of your tunnel vision:
Notice something?
You’ve read every textbook, and looked at the calculator answer? Yeah nah, you clearly haven’t.
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
Says person ignoring this “if” statement which says you literally must distribute if you want to remove the brackets.
No it doesn’t! 😂
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…
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 😂
5(17) means they didn’t distribute 5(3+14) into 5*3+5*14.
These textbooks unambiguously disagree.
That’s right, they Distributed the 5(17) into (5x17), and your point is?
With you, yes, and your point is?