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

Memes

47167 readers
1045 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
[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (9 children)

It's covered in the blog, but this is likely due to a bias towards Strong Juxtaposition rules for parentheses rather than Weak. It's common for those who learned math into advanced algebra/ beginning Calc and beyond, since that's the usual method for higher math education. But it isn't "correct", it's one of two standard ways of doing it. The ambiguity in the question is intentional and pervasive.

[–] Portosian@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

My argument is specifically that using no separation shows intent for which way to interpret and should not default to weak juxtaposition.

Choosing not to use (6/2)(1+2) implies to me to use the only other interpretation.

There's also the difference between 6/2(1+2) and 6/2*(1+2). I think the post has a point for the latter, but not the former.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't know what you want, man. The blog's goal is to describe the problem and why it comes about and your response is "Following my logic, there is no confusion!" when there clearly is confusion in the wider world here. The blog does a good job of narrowing down why there's confusion, you're response doesn't add anything or refute anything. It's just... you bragging? I'm not certain what your point is.

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

your response is “Following my logic, there is no confusion!”

That's because the actual rules of Maths have all been followed, including The Distributive Law and Terms.

there clearly is confusion in the wider world here

Amongst people who don't remember The Distributive Law and Terms.

The blog does a good job of narrowing down why there’s confusion

The blog ignores The Distributive Law and Terms. Notice the complete lack of Maths textbook references in it?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)