• 💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱English
    1·
    29 天前

    The rest of the chapter also acts like (a+b)y is acceptable notation for factorization

    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

    those two sentences concisely demonstrating you’re full of shit

    Nope. The whole rest of the chapter proves you are full of shit, hence why you’ve refused to read any more 🙄

    Just like all the books that say a*b and a(b) and ab are the same thin

    It doesn’t. Once you read some more you’ll find that axb is explicitly excluded from the list of Product notations

      • 💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱English
        1·
        29 天前

        The textbook in question has URLs on every page

        says person who still can’t link to, or say which page, this supposed proof is on 🙄

        How modern is modern enough, to admit you’re full of shit?

        says person who still hasn’t managed to link to a specific page 🙄

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          11·
          29 天前

          Follow link, Ctrl+F “page”, learn reading comprehension.

          You don’t get to sneer at people for not reading all of every math textbook ever and then act fucking illiterate when people point to a comment that explicitly says “read this thing from this page, it says you’re full of shit.”

          • 💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱English
            1·
            29 天前

            Ctrl+F “page”, learn reading comprehension

            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!!!