SmartmanApps

Here you go

Yep, that's an old Casio model, Mr. "All modern calculators", proving yet again that you can't back up your own statements 😂

Please post a source that gives a different answer to this expression, I’ll wait.

No need to wait - just scroll back through this thread and look at all the sources I already posted 🙄

for big monetized products that’s no longer the case

You know none of the calculators you're referring to are commercial right? They're all free to use, and that tells you how much effort was put into them. The only e-calc I've ever seen give a correct answer is MathGPT, which is indeed commercial now (I tried it before it went commercial), so we have a commercial e-calc giving the correct answer, and all the free ones giving the wrong answer 😂

I’m in the software industry myself

So am I in case you didn't notice 😂

you have multiple downvotes in many posts

I've never seen more than 2 on any, Mr. Needs To Exaggerate Because Has No Actual Evidence Of Being Right 😂

you’re reading them wrong

says the person who is actually reading them wrong, who is unable to cite any example of me reading it wrong

clearly says a number next to a bracket means the content of the bracket must be multiplied with said number

the content of the bracket - you just quoted that yourself and still completely missed what that means 😂

Nowhere there does anybody speak of distribution taking precedence over other operations

BRACKETS has precedence over everything 😂 So here we have an example of you reading it wrong

nowhere in all sources I can find does it say so

And can you find any source which says Multiplication takes precedence over Brackets? No. Another example of you reading it wrong

Wonder why all screenshots you post use convoluted wording

They don't use "convoluted wording"! 🤣

"the contents OF THE BRACKETS should be multiplied"

"everything IN THE BRACKET should be multiplied by that number"

Yet another example of you reading it wrong 😂

wonder why you pop up everywhere arguing the same thing and keep getting downvoted?

The only person downvoting me is the person replying, whereas the others are getting downvoted by others as well 🙄

At some point you need to understand that if one old-ass calculator

My brand new Casio calculator gives the same answer! 😂 They all do now, except for Texas Instruments - the only one stubbornly still doing it wrongly

selective reading of cherry picked passages

Sure, I'm "cherry picking" the sections of textbooks about Distribution. Do you want me to post something random about a different topic? 😂 BTW, noted that you haven't come up with any textbooks that agree with you

all the proof you have

And it is indeed proof.

when all modern calculators

Agree with me (except for Texas Instruments)

algebra solvers

Written by programmers who have forgotten the rules of Maths, and as pointed out by many people in forums.

maybe it’s time to reconsider

And yet, here you are not reconsidering 🙄

Juxtaposition taking precedence over other multiplications I can understand

Because BRACKETS - ab=(axb) BY DEFINITION 😂

it’s an arguable point

And is also the exact same rule 🙄

Distribution being a mandatory step

There's a reason it's called The Distributive Law

taking precedence over even exponents is just silly

BRACKETS taking precedence over Exponents is "silly"?? 🤣🤣🤣

and unfortunately wrong

BRACKETS taking precedence over Exponents is "unfortunately wrong"?? 🤣🤣🤣

What I say to that is I’ve met plenty of teachers who are wrong about things in their own fields,

You think they're wrong you mean, person who is saying Brackets before Exponents is "wrong" 🤣🤣🤣

people defining the rules of all those algebra solvers aren’t the programmers,

Yes they are! That's why they give wrong answers 😂 I told one he was wrong and he went and fixed it, being the one who had programmed it that way 🙄

as you’d know if you looked a bit into product development.

I know they are because I have spoken directly to them 😂 Maybe try asking some yourself, before making completely wrong statements

It’s domain experts

No it isn't, as proven by personal experience. You know who uses domain experts? calculator manufacturers. 😂 They have considerably more riding on it being right or not.

who also define tests and receive feedback on the software’s performance and errors

You know there's a whole bunch of programmers who don't bother even defining tests to begin with, right??

I’m sure (lol) you’ve sent feedback to them

Yep!

they probably looked at it and decided you’re wrong

Except for the ones who did change it. The ones who claimed I was wrong, quoted Google - who have also been told they're wrong by many people -and not Maths textbooks 🙄

As well all have.

says person who did nothing of the sort, and lied about such things as "all modern calculators " being against me (they aren't, if you had actually tried some), Exponents having precedence over Brackets, etc.

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

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

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)

And what do you do with and and the b and then the a and the c?

BTW, there's no "the a and the b" and "the a and the c", there's ab and ac, which need to be added. If a=2, b=3, and c=4, we have 2(3+4)=(6+8)=14

The first textbook only gets 5(17) by not doing what the second textbook says to do with 5(3+14)

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 🙄

First image says ‘always simplify inside,’ and shows that

And then says to Distribute, and shows that 🙄 "A number next to anything in brackets means the contents of the brackets should be multiplied".

Second image says ‘everything inside must be multiplied,’ and shows that

Yep, that's right, same as I've been telling you the whole time 😂

You’re such an incompetent troll that you proved yourself wrong within the same post

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’ve read everything you’ve posted

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...

5(17) means they didn’t distribute 5(3+14) into 53+514

That's right, they Distributed the 5(17) into (5x17), and your point is?

These textbooks unambiguously disagree

With you, yes, and your point is?

Or it was some random teacher

Yeah, maybe. My Year 7 students, who have come fresh to me from Year 6, use BEDMAS, and I teach BEDMAS for consistency (I also think it's a better acronym anyway - think of a massive 4-poster bed to ingrain the idea of BED-MAS)...

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 😂

Lmao citing yourself

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

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