OMG. That’s not even the same link BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! We were talking about this link…
You don’t get to sneer at people for not reading all of every math textbook ever
I only told you to read more than 2 sentences from one book, and specifically that chapter, not the whole book. You’re digging deep into your strawmans now, just like someone who is wrong does 🤣🤣🤣
read this thing from this page,
Except, again, you never said what page, duuuhhh!!!
Which you are admitting is fully intentional NOT the link for this…
I’ll take that as an admission then that it in fact does not prove me wrong, as you first claimed, since, despite repeated requests, you have been unable to tell me where it supposedly proves me wrong, which of course I knew would be the case to begin with when you failed to tell me where it supposedly proves me wrong 😂
The page number you desperately crave is cleverly hidden in this linked comment in the form of ‘here is a quote from this page.’
The comment also contains… the quote, from that page, showing an equation that does not obey your made-up bullshit. In a maths textbook. Which you don’t actually care about, despite your constant sneering bullshit.
Dude, why didn’t you say before? In the first place you were talking about the link, and I told you that the link took me to the index, and it took until now for you to say it was never in the link. 🙄 You just kept posting the same link to a comment and not to the textbook 🙄
PDF page 27
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Did you even read it??? 🤣🤣🤣
In other words, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), like I have been saying all along 🤣🤣🤣
Also says this…
says they are applying The Distributive Property, NOT The Distributive LAW 🤣🤣🤣
Now, that was all on Page 27, which did not include the example you gave. Where is it? On Page 28, talk about not being able to read BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 🤣🤣🤣
And, same applies - they’re using The Distributive Property, NOT The Distributive Law 🤣🤣🤣
showing an equation that does not obey your made-up bullshit
That’s because I don’t have any made-up bullshit - only you do! 🤣🤣🤣 You need to learn to read dude. Quite clearly states they are using the Distributive Property in the process of collecting like Terms, which isn’t using The Distributive Law to Expand Brackets. You need some remedial reading classes dude 🙄
In a maths textbook
Yep, and does not contradict anything that I have said 🤣🤣🤣
This would be easier if you could read
says person who gave the wrong page number, about the wrong rule, in the wrong topic 🤣🤣🤣
Can’t even figure out what “PDF page 27” means, having been led by the nose
except it was on Page 26 of the PDF 🙄
Hey which side of the parentheses is that u on?
I saw this in another textbook just this week - it’s u for units, as in litres, kilograms, etc., so it goes on the side that units go. i.e. after the number 😂
In full contravention of your made-up bullshit calling this 2020s textbook “outdated?”
No it isn’t! 🤣🤣🤣 Also, I have no idea what year that is from anyway, given it’s not in the PDF 🙄
OMG. That’s not even the same link BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! We were talking about this link…
I only told you to read more than 2 sentences from one book, and specifically that chapter, not the whole book. You’re digging deep into your strawmans now, just like someone who is wrong does 🤣🤣🤣
Except, again, you never said what page, duuuhhh!!!
Follow link, Ctrl+F “page”, for where I plainly said which page, and learn reading comprehension.
says person still posting the wrong link 🤣
Follow this fully intentional link, Ctrl+F “page” after following that link, and learn some goddamn reading comprehension.
Which you are admitting is fully intentional NOT the link for this…
I’ll take that as an admission then that it in fact does not prove me wrong, as you first claimed, since, despite repeated requests, you have been unable to tell me where it supposedly proves me wrong, which of course I knew would be the case to begin with when you failed to tell me where it supposedly proves me wrong 😂
says person still posting the wrong link 🙄
The page number you desperately crave is cleverly hidden in this linked comment in the form of ‘here is a quote from this page.’
The comment also contains… the quote, from that page, showing an equation that does not obey your made-up bullshit. In a maths textbook. Which you don’t actually care about, despite your constant sneering bullshit.
This would be easier if you could read.
Dude, why didn’t you say before? In the first place you were talking about the link, and I told you that the link took me to the index, and it took until now for you to say it was never in the link. 🙄 You just kept posting the same link to a comment and not to the textbook 🙄
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Did you even read it??? 🤣🤣🤣
In other words, a(b+c)=(ab+ac), like I have been saying all along 🤣🤣🤣
Also says this…
says they are applying The Distributive Property, NOT The Distributive LAW 🤣🤣🤣
Now, that was all on Page 27, which did not include the example you gave. Where is it? On Page 28, talk about not being able to read BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 🤣🤣🤣
And, same applies - they’re using The Distributive Property, NOT The Distributive Law 🤣🤣🤣
That’s because I don’t have any made-up bullshit - only you do! 🤣🤣🤣 You need to learn to read dude. Quite clearly states they are using the Distributive Property in the process of collecting like Terms, which isn’t using The Distributive Law to Expand Brackets. You need some remedial reading classes dude 🙄
Yep, and does not contradict anything that I have said 🤣🤣🤣
says person who gave the wrong page number, about the wrong rule, in the wrong topic 🤣🤣🤣
Dolt.
Can’t even figure out what “PDF page 27” means, having been led by the nose.
Hey which side of the parentheses is that u on?
In full contravention of your made-up bullshit calling this 2020s textbook “outdated?”
except it was on Page 26 of the PDF 🙄
I saw this in another textbook just this week - it’s u for units, as in litres, kilograms, etc., so it goes on the side that units go. i.e. after the number 😂
No it isn’t! 🤣🤣🤣 Also, I have no idea what year that is from anyway, given it’s not in the PDF 🙄