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

Memes

47138 readers
1031 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.

[–] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago (24 children)

How are people upvoting you for refusing to read the article?

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I did read the article. I am commenting that I have never encountered strong juxtaposition and sharing why I think it is a poor choice.

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

I have never encountered strong juxtaposition

There's "strong juxtaposition" in both Terms and The Distributive Law - you've never encountered either of those?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (38 replies)