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.
says person not providing a screenshot of me saying that. I always say pronumeral, which proves you’re paraphrasing your poor comprehension of what I actually said 🙄 I can tell you that I was talking about we never write (b+c)a=(ab+ac), so go ahead and find one that does
‘Well of course unit variables go after brackets!’
Are you saying that’s wrong?? 🤣🤣🤣
Show me any textbook making that distinction. One
The one you just posted a screenshot of! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
It says “distributive property” right next to it
Yep, and not Distributive Law, duuuuhhh!!! 🤣🤣🤣 I already pointed that out first time around for this.
next to the part that proves you wrong
There isn’t any part that proves I’m wrong! None of it was about The Distributive Law! 🤣🤣🤣
Literally the screenshot above, which you provided, says (b+c)a=(ab+ac). 17u+25u=(17+25)u.
Are you saying that’s wrong?
I am explicitly calling you an incompetent fraud for trying to make the distinction. Do you need it in shorter words?
u is not a unit, in that screenshot. It’s just u. Like how the problem is just you.
Shown a textbook where a variable gets distributed after the brackets, to disprove where you’re still saying, right now, that distribution cannot go after the brackets… you make up some bullshit about how that variable is speeecial. Show me any printed text saying so, or fuck off.
Yep, which is ab+ac=(b+c)a, so not (b+c)a=(ab+ac), duuuhh!!!
It doesn’t say a=b, it says b=a! It doesn’t say equals, it says means! It’s not the property, it’s the law! It’s not the notation, it’s the convention! I’m not wrong, it’s just an exception!
That’s right. If you’ve paid any attention at any time to everything I have said you would see me debunking people who say because axb=ab, that means ab=axb. It doesn’t! It’s right there in textbooks that ab=(axb), therefore done in the Brackets step 😂 The difference is it doesn’t say axb==ab, because, if it did say that it is identically equal, then indeed it would be true that ab=axb, but it’s not, so it isn’t. Not my fault you don’t know the difference between equals and identically equal 🙄
BTW, again, here is a textbook saying ab=(axb)…
And here’s a textbook about the difference between equals and identically equal…
It doesn’t say equals, it says means!
Yep! Now you’re getting it.
It’s not the property, it’s the law!
Yep!
It’s not the notation, it’s the convention!
rules actually. You were on a roll there for a bit
I’m not wrong, it’s just an exception!
No idea what you’re talking about
Fuck off
I’ll take that as an admission that you’re wrong then. See ya
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.
says person not providing a screenshot of me saying that. I always say pronumeral, which proves you’re paraphrasing your poor comprehension of what I actually said 🙄 I can tell you that I was talking about we never write (b+c)a=(ab+ac), so go ahead and find one that does
Are you saying that’s wrong?? 🤣🤣🤣
The one you just posted a screenshot of! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yep, and not Distributive Law, duuuuhhh!!! 🤣🤣🤣 I already pointed that out first time around for this.
There isn’t any part that proves I’m wrong! None of it was about The Distributive Law! 🤣🤣🤣
Literally the screenshot above, which you provided, says (b+c)a=(ab+ac). 17u+25u=(17+25)u.
I am explicitly calling you an incompetent fraud for trying to make the distinction. Do you need it in shorter words?
u is not a unit, in that screenshot. It’s just u. Like how the problem is just you.
Shown a textbook where a variable gets distributed after the brackets, to disprove where you’re still saying, right now, that distribution cannot go after the brackets… you make up some bullshit about how that variable is speeecial. Show me any printed text saying so, or fuck off.
says person revealing their deep comprehension problems 🤣🤣🤣
Yep, which is ab+ac=(b+c)a, so not (b+c)a=(ab+ac), duuuhh!!! 🤣🤣🤣
says person with proven comprehension problems 🙄
and why do you think they chose u, and not, you know, x, y, a, or b? 😂
Nope! It was not Distributed, it was Factorised. You don’t seem to understand anything at all about Maths 🙄
to which you posted Factorising 🤣🤣🤣
I’ve just shown you one which says it’s Factorising, since you don’t seem to understand how that’s different to Distribution 🙄
It doesn’t say a=b, it says b=a! It doesn’t say equals, it says means! It’s not the property, it’s the law! It’s not the notation, it’s the convention! I’m not wrong, it’s just an exception!
Fuck off.
That’s right. If you’ve paid any attention at any time to everything I have said you would see me debunking people who say because axb=ab, that means ab=axb. It doesn’t! It’s right there in textbooks that ab=(axb), therefore done in the Brackets step 😂 The difference is it doesn’t say axb==ab, because, if it did say that it is identically equal, then indeed it would be true that ab=axb, but it’s not, so it isn’t. Not my fault you don’t know the difference between equals and identically equal 🙄
BTW, again, here is a textbook saying ab=(axb)…
And here’s a textbook about the difference between equals and identically equal…
Yep! Now you’re getting it.
Yep!
rules actually. You were on a roll there for a bit
No idea what you’re talking about
I’ll take that as an admission that you’re wrong then. See ya