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

Memes

45655 readers
2529 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
857
6÷2(1+2) (programming.dev)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

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
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I believe you’re conflating the rules of maths with the notation we use to represent mathematical concepts.

You think a Maths teacher doesn't know the difference?

There is absolutely nothing stopping us from choosing to interpret a+b×c as (a+b)×c

Yes there is - the underlying Maths. 2x3 is short for 2+2+2, which is therefore why you have to expand multiplications before doing additions. If you "chose" to interpret 2+3x4 (which we KNOW is equal to 14, because 3x4=3+3+3+3 by definition) as (2+3)x4, you would get 20, which is clearly wrong, since 20 isn't equal to 14.

We don’t even have to write it like that at all

No that's right, because it IS written differently in different languages, but regardless of how you write it, it doesn't change that 2+3x4=14 - the underlying Maths doesn't change regardless of how you decide to write it. Maths is literally universal.

× before + is a very convenient choice

It's not a choice, it's a consequence of the fact that x is shorthand for +. i.e. 2x3=2+2+2.

it is still just a choice

It is a consequence of the definitions of what each operator does. If x is a contraction of +, then we have to expand x before we do +. If it were the other way around then we'd have to do it the other way around. Anything which is a contraction of something else has to be expanded first.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Hey man, if you want to resort to some weird appeal to authority argument despite having clear examples against what you are saying - go for it. You can choose to die on that hill if you want to.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

clear examples against what you are saying

Which are where, exactly? You haven't presented any. You haven't, for example, shown how one can make (2+3)x4=14.

re: appeal to authority

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The examples I gave were that the expansion of brackets would be done differently if the order of operations was "PESADM"; and I also drew your attention to the fact that reverse polish notation exists, in which there are no brackets at all and the order of operation is entirely determined by the order that operators appear, with no hierarchy of operations. As for your appeal to authority, let me just say that your level of qualification on this topic is not above mine. It adds no weight whatsoever to your argument.

I just glanced at your post history to get a sense of why you were so engaged in this. I was a bit startled to see that you've been on a bit of a posting spree in this thread, which I point out to you is a 3 month old post on a 'memes' channel. I see you've taken issue with a lot of what people have said here. My suggestion to you now is that there probably won't be a lot of engagement in this thread from this point on. So perhaps you should just ponder what is said, and prepare yourself again for next time this comes up. Perhaps you can start by seeing if you can get a consensus amongst fellow experts in a maths channel or something, because at the moment it seems like you're on your own.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

The examples I gave were that the expansion of brackets would be done differently if the order of operations was “PESADM”

Yep I read it, and no it wouldn't. Expanding Brackets - or in the case of this mnemonic Parentheses - is done as part of B/D (as the case may be). i.e. expanding brackets isn't "multiplication" (no multiplication sign), but solving brackets (there are brackets there), which always come first in all the mnemonics.

reverse polish notation exists

...but is not taught in high school.

your level of qualification on this topic is not above mine

Maybe not, but it means it's not an "appeal to authority" (as per screenshot). Maths teachers ARE an authority on Maths. The most common appeal to authority I see from people is claiming that someone (not them) is a University professor, and "they would know". No, they wouldn't - this topic isn't taught at university - it's taught in high school.

why you were so engaged in this.

I'm a teacher. You say you're on the same level as me - don't you like to teach people what's correct?

3 month old post

Which will show up in search results for all eternity (it's how I found it - I was looking for something else!).

probably won’t be a lot of engagement in this thread from this point on

Got another 12 responses after yours. But the point is I'm not even LOOKING for responses, just to correct misinformation. As a teacher (a Maths teacher?) have you not had people say to you "But Google says"? I certainly have. It's the bane of my professions.

it seems like you’re on your own

Did you read my thread? Maths textbooks, calculators, proofs, etc. Also, someone else said what you just did, asked a Maths teacher, and was told I was correct, then was man enough to go back and edit his posts and admit I was correct and specifically said "SmartmanApps is not on his own with this".