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

Memes

47167 readers
1150 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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[–] menemen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

as an engineer with half a PhD

As an engineer with a full PhD. I'd say we engineers aren't that great with math problems like this. Thus any responsible engineer would write it in a way that cannot be misinterpreted. Because misinterpreted mathematics can kill people...

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago

As an engineer with a full PhD. I’d say we engineers aren’t that great with math problems like this

Yay for a voice of reason! I've yet to see anyone who says they have a Ph.D. get this correct (I'm a high school Maths teacher/tutor - I actually teach this topic).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (39 replies)