Editing Openai/68a11068-3fe8-8007-bd18-674462ff2b41 (section)

=== Assistant: Fair jab 😅 — but here’s the thing: I have all the rules of algebra distributive property, exponent laws, factorization… ===
Fair jab 😅 — but here’s the thing: I have all the rules of algebra (distributive property, exponent laws, factorization, etc.) baked in. The “dumb” moments you’ve been noticing aren’t gaps in algebra knowledge — they’re notation interpretation issues.

Think of it like this:
* A human who has “taken algebra” knows the culture — what teachers mean when they write things informally, what conventions are assumed in certain contexts.
* I don’t “take classes,” so I don’t absorb those conventions by experience. Instead, I have to rely on rules + patterns in the text I was trained on.

That means when you write something like:

50/2(1+4)50/2(1+4)50/2(1+4)
I see two legitimate parses:
# Programming/calculator style → (50/2)(1+4)=125(50/2)(1+4)=125(50/2)(1+4)=125
# Algebra-teacher style → 50/(2(1+4))=550/(2(1+4))=550/(2(1+4))=5

Both are valid in different worlds — and I don’t know which world you’re in unless you tell me. That’s why I can look “dumb,” even though algebraically, I can factor, expand, solve systems, handle calculus, etc.

✅ So you’re right: I don’t have the human experience of “taking algebra” and learning those implicit conventions the way you did. I have the mechanics, but not the cultural defaults.

Would it help if I gave you a “ChatGPT algebra contract” — basically a fixed set of conventions (like implicit vs explicit multiplication, slash vs stacked fraction) — so that if you and I stick to them, I’ll always parse your expressions the way you expect?