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

Memes

45704 readers
1245 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
[–] The_Vampire@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (49 children)

Having read your article, I contend it should be:
P(arentheses)
E(xponents)
M(ultiplication)D(ivision)
A(ddition)S(ubtraction)
and strong juxtaposition should be thrown out the window.

Why? Well, to be clear, I would prefer one of them die so we can get past this argument that pops up every few years so weak or strong doesn't matter much to me, and I think weak juxtaposition is more easily taught and more easily supported by PEMDAS. I'm not saying it receives direct support, but rather the lack of instruction has us fall back on what we know as an overarching rule (multiplication and division are equal). Strong juxtaposition has an additional ruling to PEMDAS that specifies this specific case, whereas weak juxtaposition doesn't need an additional ruling (and I would argue anyone who says otherwise isn't logically extrapolating from the PEMDAS ruleset). I don't think the sides are as equal as people pose.

To note, yes, PEMDAS is a teaching tool and yes there are obviously other ways of thinking of math. But do those matter? The mathematical system we currently use will work for any usecase it does currently regardless of the juxtaposition we pick, brackets/parentheses (as well as better ordering of operations when writing them down) can pick up any slack. Weak juxtaposition provides better benefits because it has less rules (and is thusly simpler).

But again, I really don't care. Just let one die. Kill it, if you have to.

[–] nightdice@feddit.de 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think anything after (whichever grade your country introduces fractions in) should exclusively use fractions or multiplication with fractions to express division in order to disambiguate. A division symbol should never be used after fractions are introduced.

This way, it doesn't really matter which juxtaposition you prefer, because it will never be ambiguous.

Anything before (whichever grade introduces fractions) should simply overuse brackets.

This comment was written in a couple of seconds, so if I missed something obvious, feel free to obliterate me.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 8 months ago

A division symbol should never be used after fractions are introduced.

But a fraction is a single term, 2 numbers separated by a division is 2 terms. Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols.

load more comments (47 replies)