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 :)

  • Kogasa
    link
    17 months ago

    It’s definitely not a mathematics issue. This all concerns only notation, not math. But it’s not a literacy issue either. It’s ambiguous in that the concept of a correct order of operations itself is wrong.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Notation is read left to right, reading it in any other order is automatically incorrect. Just like if you read a sentence out of order you won’t get it’s intention. Like I said, if you actually follow the rules it’s almost like implicit multipication having a higher order doesn’t work, which makes it illigitimate mathematics.

      • Kogasa
        link
        37 months ago

        It’s not left to right. a+b*c is unambiguously equal to a+(b*c) and not (a+b)*c.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          You determine processing order by order of operations then left to right. Always have. Even in your example, that is the left-most highest order operand, nothing ambiguous about it.

          • Kogasa
            link
            17 months ago

            So it’s “higher operands first, then left to right.” I agree. But you presuppose that e.g. multiplication is higher than addition (which, again, I agree with). But now they say implicit multiplication is higher than explicit multiplication. You apparently disagree, but this has nothing to do with “left to right” now.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              0
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Just because they say one type of multiplication has precedence doesn’t make it so. We’ve already shown how using parenthesis negates that concept, and matches the output of the method that doesn’t give implicit multiplication precedence, ipso facto, giving ANY multiplication precedence over other multiplication or division doesn’t conform to the rule of highest-operand left to right and doesn’t conform to mathematical notation, and provides an answer that is wrong when the equation is correctly extrapolated with parenthesis, ergo it is utterly conceptually, objectively, and demonstrably, incorrect.

              Edit: It was at this moment he realised, he fucked up. Using parenthesis doesn’t resolve to one or the other because the issue is inherent ambiguity in how the the unstated operand is represented by the intention of the writer. They’re both wrong because the writer is leaving an ambiguous assumption in a mathematical notation. Ergo, USE PARENTHESES, ALWAYS.

              • Kogasa
                link
                17 months ago

                Just because they say one type of multiplication has precedence doesn’t make it so.

                It’s not that their words have magic power. It’s that it’s just an arbitrary notational convention in the first place.

                We’ve already shown how using parenthesis negates that concept, and matches the output of the method that doesn’t give implicit multiplication precedence

                Using parentheses doesn’t “negate” or “match” anything. (a * b) + c and a * (b + c) are two different expressions specifically because of the use of parentheses, regardless of the relative order of the * and + without parentheses.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  17 months ago

                  You’re right, I had that epiphany and and updated my comment. Thanks for helping me educate myself.

                  • Kogasa
                    link
                    14 months ago

                    Stop spamming me with uneducated nonsense

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  You’re responding to a 3 month old post without even reading all of what you’re replying to. Are you retarded?

                  • without even reading all of what you’re replying to

                    I read what you wrote when you said…

                    the writer is leaving an ambiguous assumption in a mathematical notation

                    …and I responded by saying there’s no such thing as ambiguity in Maths (and in this case it’s because of The Distributive Law, and the paragraph before that was about “implicit multiplication” of which there is no such thing). I therefore have no idea what you’re talking about in saying I’m replying to something I haven’t read, when I quite clearly am responding to something I have read.

                    Are you retarded?

                    No, I’m a Maths teacher (hence why I know it’s not ambiguous - I know The Distributive Law. In fact I teach it. You can find info about it here - contains actual Maths textbook references, unlike the original article under discussion here).