the map is 2 communities short

Couldn’t find 2 hidden communities? I guess it’s working then! 😂

Why post something that isn’t even out for another 10 days?

Because some might want to watch it live and participate in the chat.

I do agree that per dev is such a weird way to do licensing.

Related - I was teaching at a school where I wanted them to get some plagiarism tool. The charge was per student. It was a newish school with a lot of growth, and another new school was still being built nearby (not being put into service for another year or two), so the school had A LOT of students (nearly 2 school’s worth), so, they couldn’t afford it. I ended up having to manually copy some of my student’s code and then Google it to see if they had copied it from anywhere (and yes, some of them had. BTW the most hilarious poor effort at trying to cheat was one who’s code not only didn’t even compile, but they hadn’t even bothered changing the Imperial measurements to Metric! Didn’t even need to Google that one - here’s your letter to parents 😂).

deleted by creator

post containing link to recording of this talk

post containing link to recording of this talk

post containing link to recording of this talk

Nope. You gave me something to solve, as I already said. If I have x²-x and want to solve it, I use x(x-1) to find the roots - that isn’t simplifying, that’s solving.

that’s not a result, that’s it’s shitty AI response. I am talking about the actual search results.

Yep, it’s an actual search result. Look underneath the AI part.

I’d use it to solve it, as per my previous comment on the difference between solving and simplifying.

So you’re just ignoring Maths textbooks? Got it.

BTW in case you didn’t know about this infamous Google result…

“simplify” literally means to make the equation easier to understand

Nope. It means to present it in the simplest way possible. e.g. 5/10=1/2.

You are arguing that “expand and simplify” is the exact same thing as “simplify”

No I’m not. I’m saying “expand and simplify” is a thing in all high school Maths textbooks, “factor and simplify” isn’t a thing in any of them.

“Sometimes factoring is prudent” - if you’re trying to solve an equation, yes, but solving and simplifying aren’t the same thing. If I arrive at an answer of 5/10 then I have solved but not simplified. Sometimes it’s not even possible to simplify, because the answer is already in the simplest form possible, such as an answer of 1/2. I teach students when to recognise when something can be simplified and when it can’t. Your original contention was that the Term was already simplified, and it wasn’t.

“And thanks for the downvotes.” - I downvote anything that is incorrect, just like a student would lose marks for same.

Man you’re dense

Says person citing Google results instead of Maths textbooks! 😂

Are you a high school math teacher by chance?

Yep.

Because you’re using a rigid definition of simplify that I don’t necessarily agree with.

You don’t agree with Maths textbooks? 😂

“And told you to simplify, what would you do?” - I would ask you what on Earth it’s supposed to say, given it’s formatted all weird! 😂

My point (made poorly) was there is “expand and simplify” and also “factor and simplify”. Two different things.

And my point is there’s no such thing as “factor and simplify”, since they are opposite operations to each other.

My stipulation was that the x-x term didn’t exist, such that the equation would be fully simplified

And it STILL wouldn’t be simplified.

“factor and simplify”

Factorising is the opposite process to expanding, so no, there’s no such thing as “factor and simplify”.

I would argue the result of that would be less simplified than the factored version. Eye of the beholder type thing.

It’s a definition of Maths thing. Simplified answers don’t have brackets in them.

Or “factor and simplify”

Factorising is the opposite process to expanding, so no, that isn’t simplifying.

The variables a, b, c, and z must have a stated correlation

They do! a is the pronumeral in the 1st factor, b is the pronumeral in the 2nd factor, c is the pronumeral in the 3rd factor - i.e. the first 3 terms in a sequence - and the nth factor has the pronumeral z, and you think that ISN’T stating a relationship between term t of the sequence and the t-th pronumeral? 😂

“the series can only be inferred using the rules of the English language” - well, they haven’t used Greek letters for it, have they?? 😂

a multiplicand in this case refers to one of the (n-x) terms

Well, that’s what was apparently meant, but in fact the correct terminology here is factors. There’s only multiplicands (and multipliers) with an explicit multiplication sign. axb - multiplicand a and multiplier b, ab - Term with factors a and b, and a is the coefficient of this Term.