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 :)

If you are so sure that you are right and already “know it all”, why bother and even read this? There is no comment section to argue.

I beg to differ. You utter

*fool*! You*created*a comment section yourself on lemmy and you are clearly wrong about everything!You take the mean of 1 and 9 which is 4.5!

/j

🤣 I wasn’t even sure if I should post it on lemmy. I mainly wrote it so I can post it under other peoples posts that actually are intended to artificially create drama to hopefully show enough people what the actual problems are with those puzzles.

But I probably am a fool and this is not going anywhere because most people won’t read a 30min article about those math problems :-)

Actually the correct answer is clearly 0.2609 if you follow the order of operations correctly:

6/2(1+2)

= 6/23

= 0.26Nah man, distribute the 2.

6/2(1+2)

= 6/2+4

= 3+4

= 7This is like 4st grayed maff.

I did read the post (well done btw), but I guess I must have missed that. And here I thought I was a comedic genius

@relevants you truly are the smartest of all men

I did (skimmed it, at least) and I liked it. 🙃

Right, because 5 rounds down to 4.5

Not sure if sarcastic and

*woosh*, or adding to the joke ಠ_ಠ*woosh*I thought the “/j” tone-tag was enough ;_;

jarcasm?

If one doesn’t realize you’re op, the entire thing can be interpreted very differently.

Then “Not sure if sarcastic and woosh, or adding to the joke ಠ_ಠ” could be interpreted as something like “I’m not sure if you are adding to the joke and I’m not understanding it”.

Stop it Patrick, you’re scaring them!

…Because 4 rounds up to 4.5

The answer realistically is determined by where you place implicit multiplication (or “multiplication by juxtaposition”) in the order of operations.

Some place it

*above*explicit multiplication and division, meaning it gets done before the division giving you an answer of 1But if you place it as

*equal*to it’s explicit counterparts, then you’d sweep left to right giving you an answer of 9Since those are both valid interpretations of the order of operations dependent on what field you’re in, you’re always going to end up with disagreements on questions like these…

But in reality nobody would write an equation like this, and even if they did, there would usually be some kind of context (I.e. units) to guide you as to what the answer should be.

Edit: Just skimmed that article, and it looks like I did remember the last explanation I heard about these correctly. Yay me!

Exactly. With the blog post I try to reach people who already heared that some people say it’s ambiguous but either down understand how, or don’t believe it. I’m not sure if that will work out because people who “already know the only correct answer” probably won’t read a 30min blog post.

yeah, our math profs taught if the 2( is to be separated from that bracket for the implied multiplication then you do that math first, because the 2(1+2) is the same as (1+2)+(1+2) and not related to the first 6.

if it was 6÷2x(2+1) they suggested do division and mult from left to right, but 6÷2(2+1) implied a relationship between the number outside the parenthesis and inside them, and as soon as you broke those () you had to do the multiplication immediately that is connected to them. Like some models of calculatora do. wasn’t till a few yeara ago that I heard people were doing it differently.

if it was 6÷2x(2+1) they suggested do division and mult from left to right, but 6÷2(2+1)

Correct! Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols, so 6÷2x(2+1) is 3 terms - 6, 2, and (2+1) - whereas 6÷2(2+1) is 2 terms - 6 and 2(2+1), and the latter term has a precedence of “brackets”, NOT “multiplication”. Multiplication refers

**literally**to multiplication signs, which are only present in your first example (hence evaluated with a different order than your second example).Also noted that the OP has ignored your comment, seeing as how you pointed out the unambiguous way to do it.

2(1+2) is the same as (1+2)+(1+2)

You nearly had it. 2(1+2) is the same as (2x1+2x2). The Distributive Law - it’s the reverse process to factorising.

implicit multiplication

There’s no such thing as “implicit multiplication”

Some place it above explicit multiplication and division,

Which is correct, seeing as how we’re solving

**brackets**, and brackets**always**come first.But if you place it as equal to it’s explicit counterparts, then you’d sweep left to right giving you an answer of 9

Which is wrong.

Since those are both valid interpretations of the order of operations

No, they’re not. Treating brackets as, you know, brackets, is the only valid interpretation. “Multiplication” refers

**literally**to multiplication signs, of which there are none in this problem.But in reality nobody would write an equation like this

Yes they would. a(b+c) is the standard way to write a factorised term.

Ackshually, the answer is 4

6÷2*(1+2)

6÷(1+2)*2

6÷(3)*2

2*2

4

You’re welcome

psychopath

Psychomath

c/TheyDidAMath

If there are rules about which dot comes first then you are not allowed to do this.

You aren’t allowed to do this because division isn’t transitive.