this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
11 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

17750 readers
2006 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

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. 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

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sal@mander.xyz
fossilesque@mander.xyz
SciBot@mander.xyz
fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com
11
I dunno (piefed.cdn.blahaj.zone)
submitted 3 weeks ago by LadyButterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
435 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

You’ve harassed a dozen people to say only 53+514

Nope! I've said a(b+c)=(ab+ac) is correct.

to the point you think 2(3+5)2 isn’t 2*82

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.

If you’d stuck to one dogmatic answer

Instead I've stuck to one actual law of Maths, a(b+c)=(ab+ac).

But you’ve concisely proven

The Distributive Law, including c=0 🙄 Not sure why you would think c=0 is somehow an exception from a law

the harassment is the point

No, the rules of Maths is the point

when you can’t do algebra right

Says person who thinks c=0 is somehow an exception that isn't allowed,🙄but can't cite any textbook which says that

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

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:

The context is Maths, you have to obey the rules of Maths. a(b+c)=(ab+ac), 5(8-5)=(5x8-5x5).

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

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.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

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

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

This is your own source - and it says, juxtaposition is just multiplication. It doesn't mean E=mc^2^ is E=(mc)^2^.

Throwing other numbers on there is like arguing 1+2 is different from 2+1 because 8/1+2 is different from 8/2+1.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 35 minutes ago

This is your own source - and it says, juxtaposition is just multiplication

inside brackets. Don't leave out the inside brackets that they have specifically said you must use - "Parentheses must be introduced"! 🤣 BTW, this is a 19th Century textbook, from before they started calling them PRODUCTS 🙄

E=mc2 is E=(mc)2

No, it means E=mc² is E=mcc=(mxcxc)

Throwing other numbers on there

I have no idea what you're talking about 🙄