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 :)

  • 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.

              • you’re a slow reader

                I see you like to use made-up “facts”, just like the blog does. Is that the best you can come up with after repeatedly insisting I should read it? (which yes, would’ve been a huge waste of time, exactly as I said, had I not turned it into a positive use of time by writing a fact check about it. Alleged fake news turns out to be… fake - who would’ve thought? Oh that’s right, me :-) )

                I’ll read your comment when you read the article

                So, did you read it now? Or are you a “slow reader” and I need to wait longer for your responses?