Asklemmy

43908 readers

1314 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

529

Whats your such opinion (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

1335 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

which clearly states that the distributive property is a generalization of the distributive law

Let me say again, people calling a Koala a Koala bear doesn't mean it actually is a bear. Stop reading wikipedia and pick up a Maths textbook.

You seem to be under the impression that the distributive law and distributive property are completely different statements

It's not an impression, it's in Year 7 Maths textbooks.

this certainly is not 7th year material

And yet it appears in every Year 7 textbook I've ever seen.

Looks like we're done here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

If you don't want to see why you're wrong that's your thing, but I tried. I can just say, try to re-read the math textbook you took pictures of, and try to understand it.