• Lopen's Left Arm@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • Primarily0617@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      a natural reading of 2(2+2) treats it as the same

      you’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

    • 2x works the way it does because there’s a variable involved, and natural reading of that treats it as a single entity

      Just like 2(2+2) is also a single Term.

      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

      So what’s it equal to when x=2+2?