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

Memes

45889 readers
2509 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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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] -1 points 9 months ago

Notation isn’t semantics

Correct, the definitions and the rules define the semantics.

Mathematical proofs are working with

...the rules of Maths. In fact, when we are first teaching proofs to students we tell them they have to write next to each step which rule of Maths they have used for that step.

Nobody doubts that those are unambiguous

Apparently a lot of people do! But yes, unambiguous, and therefore the article is wrong.

But notation can be ambiguous

Nope. An obelus means divide, and "strong juxtaposition" means it's a Term, and needs The Distributive Law applied if it has brackets.

In this case it is: weak juxtaposition vs strong juxtaposition

There is no such thing as weak juxtaposition. That is another reason that the article is wrong. If there is any juxtaposition then it is strong, as per the rules of Maths. You're just giving me even more ammunition at this point.

Read the damn article

You just gave me yet another reason it's wrong - it talks about "weak juxtaposition". Even less likely to ever read it now - it's just full of things which are wrong.

How about read my damn thread which contains all the definitions and proofs needed to prove that this article is wrong? You're trying to defend the article... by giving me even more things that are wrong about it. 😂