And there you’ve proven exactly what I’ve been saying all along. 2x works the way it does because there’s a variable involved, and natural reading of that treats it as a single entity. There are no variables in the equation in the post, there are only definite numbers, parentheses, and simple mathematical operations. 8/2(2+2) is nothing more than 8/2×(2+2). There is nothing special about 2(…, this is not the equivalent of 2x.
no variables in the equation in the post, there are only definite numbers
Pronumerals literally stand in for numerals, and work exactly the same way. There is nothing special about choosing a pronumeral to represent a numeral.
8/2(2+2) is nothing more than 8/2×(2+2).
They’re completely different actually. 2(2+2) is a single term in the denominator, (2+2) - which you separated from the 2 with an x - is a now 3rd term which is now in the numerator, having been separated from the 2 which is in the denominator.
There is nothing special about 2(…, this is not the equivalent of 2x
No, what I’m explaining to you is the facts behind what every calculator with any modicum of computing power will tell you, namely that 2(2+2) is identical to 2×(2+2).
Yeah, kind of. The crappier calculator is the one generating the incorrect answer. Any calculator with any real level of oomph behind it can parse this correctly to get the correct answer, 16.
The crappier calculator is the one generating the incorrect answer
Which would be the app written by the programmer who didn’t check his Maths was correct, as opposed to the calculator made by a company who, you know, makes calculators.
The good calculator is the one using the processing power of the phone to handle the programming necessary to correctly interpret the order of operations and arrive at the correct answer, whereas the bad calculator - despite having no ads - is a cheap piece of trash unable to contain the necessary computational logic to arrive at the correct answer.
No need. The fact that you’re incapable of comprehending it at this point indicates that any further attempts to explain it to you are equally likely to fall on deaf ears.
And there you’ve proven exactly what I’ve been saying all along. 2x works the way it does because there’s a variable involved, and natural reading of that treats it as a single entity. There are no variables in the equation in the post, there are only definite numbers, parentheses, and simple mathematical operations. 8/2(2+2) is nothing more than 8/2×(2+2). There is nothing special about 2(…, this is not the equivalent of 2x.
Just like 2(2+2) is also a single Term.
Pronumerals literally stand in for numerals, and work exactly the same way. There is nothing special about choosing a pronumeral to represent a numeral.
They’re completely different actually. 2(2+2) is a single term in the denominator, (2+2) - which you separated from the 2 with an x - is a now 3rd term which is now in the numerator, having been separated from the 2 which is in the denominator.
So what’s it equal to when x=2+2?
a natural reading of
2(2+2)treats it as the sameyou’re straight up just spouting contradictory nonsense now because you’ve realised your stance doesn’t make any sense, and i am very much here for it
No, what I’m explaining to you is the facts behind what every calculator with any modicum of computing power will tell you, namely that 2(2+2) is identical to 2×(2+2).
ah yes it’s the computing power that’s at issue here
Yeah, kind of. The crappier calculator is the one generating the incorrect answer. Any calculator with any real level of oomph behind it can parse this correctly to get the correct answer, 16.
Which would be the app written by the programmer who didn’t check his Maths was correct, as opposed to the calculator made by a company who, you know, makes calculators.
~ local galaxy brain
The good calculator is the one using the processing power of the phone to handle the programming necessary to correctly interpret the order of operations and arrive at the correct answer, whereas the bad calculator - despite having no ads - is a cheap piece of trash unable to contain the necessary computational logic to arrive at the correct answer.
try again
No need. The fact that you’re incapable of comprehending it at this point indicates that any further attempts to explain it to you are equally likely to fall on deaf ears.