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 :)

  • Portosian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • atomicorange@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I originally had the same reasoning but came to the opposite conclusion. Multiplication and division have the same precedence, so I read the operations from left to right unless noted otherwise with parentheses. Thus:

      6/2=3

      3(1+2)=9

      For me to read the whole of 2(1+2) as the denominator in a fraction I would expect it to be isolated in parentheses: 6/(2(1+2)).

      Reading the blog post, I understand the ambiguity now, but i’m still fascinated that we had the same criticism (no parentheses implies intent) but had opposite conclusions.

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • 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?