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In full contravention of your made-up bullshit calling this 2020s textbook “outdated?”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 🙄
Thank you for the genuine laugh. Fuck right off with your new made-up exceptions. Incompetent fraud.
A textbook with a URL on every pagefold says you’re full of shit; it’s not a modernity problem. It’s you. Everyone knows it’s you. I am the only person on this website dumb enough to humor you, and even I know it’s you.
I quoted a textbook proving you wrong and you jumped through your ass to pretend it didn’t. ‘They used the letter u, so that’s different because I say so!’ No. You made it up.
And it still proves you wrong, because it’s still putting a variable after parentheses, which you said modern textbooks should never do. You’re bitching about a PDF having goofy page numbering and ignoring that this modern maths textbook says, shut the hell up.
You’re the one arguing that there’s an exception to The Distributive Law, not me.
Variables can just go wherever
Nope, coefficients have to be on the left, and units go on the right. It’s not complicated
You found yet another counterexample to your own bullshit
says person who was talking about a page that wasn’t even about The Distributive Law to begin with. 😂 I guess in your world then 2x3=6 is a “counter example” to 2+3=5, and you thus think 2+3=5 is “bullshit” 🤣🤣🤣
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 🙄
Thank you for the genuine laugh. Fuck right off with your new made-up exceptions. Incompetent fraud.
A textbook with a URL on every pagefold says you’re full of shit; it’s not a modernity problem. It’s you. Everyone knows it’s you. I am the only person on this website dumb enough to humor you, and even I know it’s you.
That’s hilarious that you find what’s in Maths textbooks laughable. No wonder you have no idea how to do Maths! 🤣🤣🤣
not me. I saw in in a Maths textbook 🙄 You know, those things you never look in
And yet somehow you weren’t able to link to that page 🤣🤣🤣
No it doesn’t! 🤣🤣🤣
Is this “everyone” in the room with us right now?
well, you got something right then 🤣🤣🤣
says person still unable to cite any Maths textbooks that agree with them 🙄
I quoted a textbook proving you wrong and you jumped through your ass to pretend it didn’t. ‘They used the letter u, so that’s different because I say so!’ No. You made it up.
And it still proves you wrong, because it’s still putting a variable after parentheses, which you said modern textbooks should never do. You’re bitching about a PDF having goofy page numbering and ignoring that this modern maths textbook says, shut the hell up.
No you didn’t! 🤣🤣🤣
Nope, I told you what I saw in another textbook just this week 🙄
says the person actually making things up because they can’t rebut what’s in textbooks 🤣🤣🤣
a variable representing units, which do go afterwards 🙄
Not if they’re talking about Distribution they shouldn’t, but the textbook you posted isn’t talking about Distribution 🙄
No it doesn’t! It’s not even a page about Distribution 🤣🤣🤣
‘Variable never go after the brackets!’ Here’s a book showing it can. ‘Well of course unit variables go after brackets!’
Show me any textbook making that distinction. One.
It says “distributive property” right next to it.
The maths textbook says “distributive property” right next to the part that proves you wrong.
Found it. Units on the right. Proves you are the incompetent fraud, again 🤣🤣🤣 Or do you not know that m is for metres?? 🤣🤣🤣
No mention of an exception. Variables can just go wherever. You found yet another counterexample to your own bullshit.
You’re the one arguing that there’s an exception to The Distributive Law, not me.
Nope, coefficients have to be on the left, and units go on the right. It’s not complicated
says person who was talking about a page that wasn’t even about The Distributive Law to begin with. 😂 I guess in your world then 2x3=6 is a “counter example” to 2+3=5, and you thus think 2+3=5 is “bullshit” 🤣🤣🤣
Math doesn’t change based on what variables represent.