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 :)

  • Donebrach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Wow neat, and yet the thread was full of people going back and forth about how the equation can be misinterpreted based on how the order of operations can be interpreted. Thanks for your months later input though.

      • Donebrach@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        So you are saying exactly what I said; people can misinterpret things that other people have written. Good job. Thanks again for stopping by a 3 month old thread about a dumb meme.

        • So you are saying exactly what I said; people can misinterpret things that other people have written

          No, I’m not. They’re “misinterpreting” something that isn’t even a rule of Maths. There’s no way to misinterpret the actual rules, there’s no way to misinterpret the equation. There’s no alternative interpretations of the notation. Someone who didn’t remember the rules literally made up “implicit multiplication”, and then other people argued with them about what that meant. 😂

          • atomicorange@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            You look like a real idiot here. I really suggest you actually read the article instead of “scanning” it. You clearly don’t even understand the term “implicit multiplication” if you’re claiming it’s made up. Implicit multiplication is not the controversial part of this equation, which you would know if you read the article and understood what people in this thread are even talking about. Stop spamming your shitty blog and just. Read. The. Article.

            • read the article instead of “scanning” it.

              I stopped reading as soon as I saw the claim that the right answer was wrong. I then scanned it for any textbook references, and there were none (as expected).

              You clearly don’t even understand the term “implicit multiplication” if you’re claiming it’s made up

              Funny that you use the word “term”, since Terms are ONE of the things that people are referring to when they say “implicit multiplication” - the other being The Distributive Law. i.e. Two DIFFERENT actual rules of Maths have been lumped in together in a made-up rule (by people who don’t remember the actual rules).

              BTW if you think it’s not made-up then provide me with a Maths textbook reference that uses it. Spoiler alert: you won’t find any.

              Implicit multiplication is not the controversial part of this equation

              It’s not the ONLY controversial part of the equation - people make other mistakes with it too - but it’s the biggest part. It’s the mistake that most people have made.

              shitty blog

              So that’s what you think of people who educate with actual Maths textbook references?

              Read. The. Article.

              Read Maths textbooks.

              • atomicorange@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Skimmed your comment and it’s wrong. Let me know if you ever decide to read the article instead of arguing against an imagined opponent.

                • Let me know if you ever decide to read the article instead of arguing against an imagined opponent

                  Read it, wasn’t imagined. In fact it was even worse than I thought it would be! Did you not notice about how a blog about the alleged ambiguity in order of operations actually disobeyed order of operations in a deliberately ambiguous example? I wrote 5 Fact check posts, starting here - you’re welcome.