this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
849 points (96.4% liked)

Memes

45727 readers
1034 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
849
6÷2(1+2) (programming.dev)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by wischi@programming.dev to c/memes@lemmy.ml
 

https://zeta.one/viral-math/

I wrote a (very long) blog post about those viral math problems and am looking for feedback, especially from people who are not convinced that the problem is ambiguous.

It's about a 30min read so thank you in advance if you really take the time to read it, but I think it's worth it if you joined such discussions in the past, but I'm probably biased because I wrote it :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (41 children)

I disagree. Without explicit direction on OOO we have to follow the operators in order.

The parentheses go first. 1+2=3

Then we have 6 ÷2 ×3

Without parentheses around (2×3) we can't do that first. So OOO would be left to right. 9.

In other words, as an engineer with half a PhD, I don't buy strong juxtaposition. That sounds more like laziness than math.

[–] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Yeah, but implicit multiplication without a sign is often treated with higher priority.

[–] The_Vampire@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sure. That doesn't mean it's right to do.

[–] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Please read the article, that's exactly what it's about. There is no right answer.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Let them fight.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -1 points 9 months ago
[–] Agrivar@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I read the article, and it explained the situation and the resultant confusion very well. That said, could we not have some international body just make a decision one way or the other, instead of perpetuating this uncertainty?

[–] wischi@programming.dev 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's practically impossible to do that because (applied) mathematics is such a diverse field and there is no global authority (and really can't be).

Math notation is very similar to natural languages what you are proposing is a bit like saying we have an ambiguity in english with the word "bat". It can mean the animal or the sport device. To prevent confusion the oxford dictionary editors just decide that from now on "bat" only refers to the animal and not the club. Problem solved globally? Probably not :-)

What you can do/try is to enforce some rules in smaller groups, like various style guides and standards are trying to do. For example it's way simpler for a university to enforce certain conventions and styles for the work they and their students produce. But all engineers in Belgium couldn't care less what a university in India is thinking about math notations.

For real projects that involve many people there are typically industry standards that are followed that work a bit like in the university example and is enforced by the participants of the project.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev -2 points 9 months ago

could we not have some international body just make a decision one way or the other

There's no decision to be made. The correct rules are already taught in literally every Year 7-8 Maths textbook.

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Is it though? I've only ever seen it treated as standard multiplication.

load more comments (38 replies)