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 :)
Seems this whole thing is the pedestrian-math-nerd’s equivalent to the pedestrian-grammar-nerd’s arguments on the Oxford comma. At the end of the day it seems mathematical notation is just as flexible as any other facet of written human communication and the real answer is “make things as clear as possible and if there is ambiguity, further clarify what you are trying to communicate.”
Pretty much. While it’s worth knowing that not everyone agrees on how implicit multiplication is prioritised, anywhere that everyone agreeing on the answer actually mattered, you wouldn’t write an equation as ambiguous as this one in the first place
It’s not ambiguous. People who say it is have usually forgotten The Distributive Law or Terms, or more commonly both!
Not even remotely similar. Maths rules are fixed. The order of operations rules are at least 400 years old.
No, it isn’t. The book “A history of mathematical notation” is in itself more than 100 years old.
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.
I only just found the thread yesterday. There’s only 1 “interpretation”, and the only back and forth I’ve seen about interpretations is about implicit multiplication, which isn’t a thing, at all - it’s people conflating The Distributive Law and Terms dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110925761375035558
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.
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. 😂
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.
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).
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.
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.
So that’s what you think of people who educate with actual Maths textbook references?
Read Maths textbooks.
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.