says person who only read 2 sentences out of a textbook and thought it proved me wrong. 😂 In other words, you’re unable to show where it shows me wrong anywhere. Got it
The rest of the chapter also acts like (a+b)y is acceptable notation for factorization, which is why it appears in - for example - those two sentences concisely demonstrating you’re full of shit.
Just like all the books that say a*b and a(b) and ab are the same thing.
‘You disagree with maths textbooks?!?!?!’
This textbook explicitly shows you’re wrong.
‘I disagree with that maths textbook.’
Where?
Read.
says person who only read 2 sentences out of a textbook and thought it proved me wrong. 😂 In other words, you’re unable to show where it shows me wrong anywhere. Got it
How many sentences have to say you’re full of shit before you’re full of shit?
Maths textbooks do all kinds of things you insist aren’t real. None of them have your back. The problem is you.
Chapters. You’re ignoring the whole rest of the chapter 🙄
says someone failing to give a single example of any
Nope. The problem is you not reading the whole chapter 🙄
The rest of the chapter also acts like (a+b)y is acceptable notation for factorization, which is why it appears in - for example - those two sentences concisely demonstrating you’re full of shit.
Just like all the books that say a*b and a(b) and ab are the same thing.
Which it isn’t in modern textbooks. You know this is a 1965 textbook, right? No, you probably don’t, given you only quoted 2 sentences
Nope. The whole rest of the chapter proves you are full of shit, hence why you’ve refused to read any more 🙄
It doesn’t. Once you read some more you’ll find that axb is explicitly excluded from the list of Product notations
The textbook in question has URLs on every page. How modern is modern enough, to admit you’re full of shit?