rasensprenger

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Let me quote from the article:

"In mathematics, the distributive property of binary operations is a generalization of the distributive law, which asserts that the equality x*(y+z) = x*y + x*z is always true in elementary algebra."

This is the first sentence of the article, which clearly states that the distributive property is a generalization of the distributive law, which is then stated.

Make sure you can comprehend that before reading on.

To make your misunderstanding clear: You seem to be under the impression that the distributive law and distributive property are completely different statements, where the only difference in reality is that the distributive property is a property that some fields (or other structures with a pair of operations) may have, and the distributive law is the statement that common algebraic structures like the integers and the reals adhere to the distributive property.

I don't know which school you went to or teach at, but this certainly is not 7th year material.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (12 children)

About the ambiguity: If I write f^{-1}(x), without context, you have literally no way of knowing whether I am talking about a multiplicative or a functional inverse, which means that it is ambiguous. It's correct notation in both cases, used since forever, but you need to explicitly disambiguate if you want to use it.

I hope this helps you more than the stackexchange post?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If you read the wikipedia article, you would find it also stating the distributive law, literally in the first sentence, which is just that the distributive property holds for elemental algebra. This is something you learn in elementary school, I don't think you'd need any qualification besides that, but be assured that I am sufficiently qualified :)

By the way, Wikipedia is not intrinsically less accurate than maths textbooks. Wikipedia has mistakes, sure, but I've found enough mistakes (and had them corrected for further editions) in textbooks. Your textbooks are correct, but you are misunderstanding them. As previously mentioned, the distributive law is about an algebraic substitution, not a notational convention. Whether you write it as a(b+c) = ab + ac or as a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c is insubstantial.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Klingt lustig, hast du eine Verknüpfung?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (19 children)

Please learn some math before making more blatantly incorrect statements. Quoting yourself as a source is... an interesting thing to do.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_property

I did read the answers, try doing that yourself.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (21 children)

I don't know what you're on about with your distributive law thing. That just states that a*(b + c) = a*b + a*c, and has literally no relation to notation.

And "math is never ambiguous" is a very bold claim, and certainly doesn't hold for mathematical notation. For some simple exanples, see here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1024280/most-ambiguous-and-inconsistent-phrases-and-notations-in-maths#1024302

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Oder einfach nur als pdf, ohne ausdrucken, kann man ja trotzdem am handy vorzeigen

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Ja, nur "c km/h" ist so ähnlich wie "5 km/h km/h", denn c ist nicht nur eine zahl, sondern beinhaltet bereits eine einheit. Korrekt sollte man also "120km/h - c" schreiben. Ist aber völlig egal.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But be careful, you can pretty easily break stuff by messing up fstab

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Aaah vielen dank :)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Wer sind die abgebildeten Personen?

view more: ‹ prev next ›