this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
11 points (100.0% liked)
Science Memes
17736 readers
2510 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
The first textbook only gets 5(17) by not doing what the second textbook says to do with 5(3+14).
First image says 'always simplify inside,' and shows that.
Second image says 'everything inside must be multiplied,' and shows that.
You're such an incompetent troll that you proved yourself wrong within the same post.
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 🙄
And then says to Distribute, and shows that 🙄 "A number next to anything in brackets means the contents of the brackets should be multiplied".
Yep, that's right, same as I've been telling you the whole time 😂
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 think I know what you're missing - perhaps intentionally 🙄 - in a(b+c), c can be equal to 0. It can be any number, not just positive and negative, leaving us with a(b)=(axb), which is also what I've been saying all along (not sure how you missed it, other than to deliberately ignore it)
Nope! I've said a(b+c)=(ab+ac) is correct.
You mean I know that, because it disobeys The Distributive Law 🙄 The expression you're looking for is 2x(3+5)², which is indeed not subject to Distribution, since the 2 is not next to the brackets.
Instead I've stuck to one actual law of Maths, a(b+c)=(ab+ac).
The Distributive Law, including c=0 🙄 Not sure why you would think c=0 is somehow an exception from a law
No, the rules of Maths is the point
Says person who thinks c=0 is somehow an exception that isn't allowed,🙄but can't cite any textbook which says that
Dude you're not even hitting the right reply buttons anymore. Is that what you do when you're drunk? It'd explain leading with 'nope! I've said exactly what you accused me of.'
You keep pretending distribution is different from multiplication:
And then posting images that explicitly say the contents of the brackets should be multiplied. Or that they can be simplified first. I am not playing dueling-sources with you, because your own sources call bullshit on what you keep hassling strangers about.
You've harassed a dozen people to say only 5*3+5*14 is correct, to the point you think 2(3+5)^2^ isn't 2*8^2^.
If you'd stuck to one dogmatic answer you could pretend it's a pet peeve. But you've concisely proven you don't give a shit - the harassment is the point. Quote, posture, emoji, repeat, when you can't do algebra right.