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 :)

  • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Look, this is not the only case where semantics and syntax don’t always map, in the same way e.g.: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/586690

    I’m sure it’s possible that all your textbooks agree, but if you e.g. read a paper written by someone who isn’t from North America (or wherever you’re from) it’s possible they use different semantics for a notation that for you seems to have clear meaning.

    That’s not a controversial take. You need to accept that human communication isn’t as perfectly unambiguous as mathematics (writing math down using notation is a way of communicating)

    • Look, this is not the only case where semantics and syntax don’t always map

      Syntax varies, semantics doesn’t. e.g. in some places colon is used for division, in others an obelus, but regardless of which notation you use, the interpretation of division is immutable.

      they use different semantics for a notation that for you seems to have clear meaning

      They might use different notation, but the semantics is universal.

      You need to accept that human communication isn’t as perfectly unambiguous as mathematics (writing math down using notation is a way of communicating)

      Writing Maths notation is a way of using Maths, and has to be interpreted according to the rules of Maths - that’s what they exist for!

      • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        No, you can’t prove that some notation is correct and an alternative one isn’t. It’s all just convention.

        Maths is pure logic. Notation is communication, which isn’t necessarily super logical. Don’t mix the two up.

        • you can’t prove that some notation is correct and an alternative one isn’t

          I never said any of it wasn’t correct. It’s all correct, just depends on what notation is used in your country as to what’s correct in your country.

          It’s all just convention.

          No, it’s all defined. In Australia we use the obelus, which by definition is division. In European countries they use colon, which by definition in those countries means division. 1+1=2 by definition. If you wanna say 1+1=2 is just a convention then you don’t understand how Maths works at all.

          What you are saying is like saying “there’s no such things as dictionaries, there are no definitions, only conventions”.

          Maths is pure logic. Notation is communication, which isn’t necessarily super logical. Don’t mix the two up.

          Don’t mix up super logical Maths notation with “communication” - it’s all defined (just like words which are used to communicate are defined in a dictionary, except Maths definitions don’t evolve - we can see the same definitions being used more than 100 years ago. See Lennes’ letter).

          • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yeah, and when you read a paper that contains math, you won’t see a declaration about what country’s notation is used for things that aren’t defined. So it’s entirely possible that you don’t know how some piece of notation is supposed to be interpreted immediately.

            Of course if there’s ambiguity like that, only one interpretation is correct and it should be easy to figure out which one, but that’s not guaranteed.

            • when you read a paper that contains math, you won’t see a declaration about what country’s notation is used for things that aren’t defined

              Not hard to work out. It’ll be , for decimal point and : for division, or . for decimal point and ÷ or / for division, and those 2 notations never get mixed with each other, so never any ambiguity about which it is. The question here is using ÷ so there’s no ambiguity about what that means - it’s a division operator (and being an operator, it is separating the terms).