There is no special case

So you're saying there no such rule as 2(ab)²=2a²b². Got it. you're admitting you're wrong then 😂

You made it up by confusing yourself about “dismissing a bracket.”

Says person who just claimed there's no such rule as the one they've been making the basis of their wrong claims 😂

To everyone else in the world, brackets are just another term

That's right. That's why you cannot separate the coefficient from it 😂

Several of the textbooks I’ve linked will freely juxtapose brackets and variables before or after

Several of your textbooks are outdated then

because it makes no difference

So is (2+3)-4 equal to -20 or 1? I'll wait

And that’s as factorization.

Wrong Factorisation. ab+ac=a(b+c)

This Maths textbook you plainly didn’t read was published this decade

And yet, is still wrong

Still waiting on any book ever that demonstrates your special bullshit

You were the one who just said there's no such special rule as 2(ab)²=2a²b² 😂

7bx with b=(m+n) becomes

7x(m+n)

and it’s the same damn thing

No, 7(m+n)x is invalid syntax due to ambiguity when x is negative.

Splitting it like 7xm+7xn is no different from splitting (m+n)/7 into m/7+n/7

That's right. I never said otherwise.

Brackets only happen first because they have to be reduced to a single term

They happen first because they already are a single Term...

A bracket with one number is not “unsolved”

Yes it is! If you haven't solved Brackets then you cannot progress onto Exponents.

it’s one number

Exactly! That's why you cannot separate the a from (b+c) - it's all ONE NUMBER 😂

Squaring a bracket with one number is squaring that number.

if it has been written as 2(ab)², not if it has been written a(b+c)². Also, again, there is no exponent in a(b+c), so that rule doesn't apply anyway 😂

Hence: 6(ab)3

6(ab)² <== note: not 6(a+b)², nor 6(a+b) for that matter. You're still desperately trying to make a False Equivalence argument 😂

It has a (b-c) term

No it doesn't. a(b-c) is one term

The base of an exponent is whatever’s in the symbols of inclusion.

And there's no exponent in a(b+c) 🙄

See page 121 of 696

See page 37

Also see page 282 and answers on page 577. x(x-1) is one term, as taught on page 37

In an expression such as 3a2,

3a² <== note: not 3(a+b), which has no exponent 🙄 It's hilarious how much effort you're putting into such an obvious False Equivalence argument 😂

You will never find a published example that makes an exception for distribution first

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! I see you haven't read ANY of the sources I've posted so far then 🤣

refers to both 8x7 and 8(7) as “symbols of multiplication.”

Yep, present tense and past tense, since 8(7) is a Product, a number, as per Pages 36 and 37, which you're still conveniently ignoring, despite me having posted it multiple times

It’s just multiplication

Nope. 8(7) is a Product, a single Term, as per Pages 36 and 37. You won't find them writing 8(7)=8x7 anywhere in the whole book, always 8(7)=56, because it's a number

It’s not special, you crank

Yes it is, as per the textbook you're quoting from! 🤣

8(7) is a product identical to 8x7

Nope! 8(7) is a number, as per the textbook you are - selectively - quoting from 😂 8(7) is one term, 8x7 is two terms, as per Page 37

Squaring either factor only squares that factor

Where there are multiple pronumeral factors and you need the brackets to specify which factors the square is applying to, which, again, none of which applies to a(b+c) anyway Mr. False Equivalence 😂

Variables don’t work differently when you know what they are.

They're not variables if you know what they are - they are constants, literally a number as per pages 36 and 37

b=1 is not somehow an exception that isn’t allowed, remember?

That's right. a(1+c)=(a+ac), and you're point is??

There’s an exponent in 2(8)2

and no Pronumerals, and 2(8) is a number as per pages 36 and 37. 🙄And if you had read those pages, you would find it also tells you why you cannot write 2(8) as 28 (in case it's not obvious). if you want 2x8², then you can just write 2x8² 🙄

it concisely demonstrates to anyone who passed high school that you can’t do algebra

says someone who is trying to say that a rule about exponents applies to expressions without exponents 🤣