💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱

  • 0 Posts
  • 207 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: November 25th, 2023

help-circle



  • I would have got 1 by doing 2(2+2) = 8 first. Not because of bracket but because of “implied multiplication.”

    Yeah, right answer but wrong reason. There’s no such thing as implicit multiplication.

    What I am learning here: 8÷2(2+2) is not same as 8÷2×(2+2)

    Correct, and that’s because of Terms - 8÷2(2+2) is 2 terms, with the (2+2) in the denominator, but 8÷2×(2+2) is 3 terms, with the (2+2) in the numerator… hence why people get the wrong answer when they add an extra multiply in.

    number next bracket is not the same as normal multiplication in rule book

    Right, because it’s not “multiplication” at all (only applies literally to multiplication signs), it’s a coefficient of a bracketed term, which means we have to apply The Distributive Law as part of solving Brackets.

    ÷ & × have right of way rule with whoever is left most wins

    Yeah, the actual rule is Left associativity, and going left to right is the easy way to obey that.







  • multiple always happens first. But apparently it’s what’s left side first

    Multiplication and division are equal precedence (and done left to right) if that’s what you’re talking about, but the issue is that a(b+c) isn’t “multiplication” at all, it’s a bracketed term with a coefficient which is therefore subject to The Distributive Law, and is solved as part of solving Brackets, which is always first. Multiplication refers literally to multiplication signs, of which there are none in the original question. A Term is a product, which is the result of a multiplication, not something which is to be multiplied.

    If a=2 and b=3, then…

    axb=2x3 - 2 terms

    ab=6 - 1 term



  • which clearly states that the distributive property is a generalization of the distributive law

    Let me say again, people calling a Koala a Koala bear doesn’t mean it actually is a bear. Stop reading wikipedia and pick up a Maths textbook.

    You seem to be under the impression that the distributive law and distributive property are completely different statements

    It’s not an impression, it’s in Year 7 Maths textbooks.

    this certainly is not 7th year material

    And yet it appears in every Year 7 textbook I’ve ever seen.

    Looks like we’re done here.


  • 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).



  • Ok, that’s a start. In your simple example they are all equal, but they aren’t all the same.

    yn+y - 2 terms

    y(n+1) - 1 term

    y×(n +1) - 2 terms

    To see the difference, now precede it with a division, like in the original question…

    1÷yn+y=(1/yn)+y

    1÷y(n+1)=1/(yn+y)

    1÷y×(n +1)=(n +1)/y

    Note that in the last one, compared to the second one, the (n+1) is now in the numerator instead of in the denominator. Welcome to why having the (2+2) in the numerator gives the wrong answer.



  • Please learn some math

    I’m a Maths teacher - how about you?

    Quoting yourself as a source

    I wasn’t. I quoted Maths textbooks, and if you read further you’ll find I also quoted historical Maths documents, as well as showed some proofs.

    I didn’t say the distributive property, I said The Distributive Law. The Distributive Law isn’t ax(b+c)=ab+ac (2 terms), it’s a(b+c)=(ab+ac) (1 term), but inaccuracies are to be expected, given that’s a wikipedia article and not a Maths textbook.

    I did read the answers, try doing that yourself

    I see people explaining how it’s not ambiguous. Other people continuing to insist it is ambiguous doesn’t mean it is.