this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
858 points (96.3% liked)

Memes

45158 readers
3105 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
858
6÷2(1+2) (programming.dev)
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by wischi@programming.dev to c/memes@lemmy.ml
 

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 :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SkiDude@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It’s also clearly not a bug as some people suggest. Bugs are – by definition – unintended behavior.

There are plenty of bugs that are well documented. I can't tell you the number of times that I've seen someone do something wrong, that they think is 100% right, and "carefully" document it. Then someone finds an edge case and points out the defined behavior has a bug, because the human forgot to account for something.

The other thing I'd point out that I didn't see in your blog is that I've seen many many people say they need to evaluate the 2(3) portion first because "parenthesis". No matter how many times I explain that this is a notation for multiplication, they try to claim it doesn't matter because parenthesis. screams into the void

The fact of the matter is that any competent person that has to write out one of these equations will do so in a way that leaves no ambiguity. These viral math posts are just designed to insert ambiguity where it shouldn't be, and prey on people who can't remember middle school math.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Regarding your first part in general true, but in this case the sheer amount of calculators for both conventions show that this is indeed intended behavior.

Regarding your second point I tried to address that in the "distributive property" section, maybe I need to rewrite it a bit to be more clear.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 1 points 6 months ago

Regarding your second point I tried to address that in the “distributive property” section,

When I discovered this comment I went to read it, and yes, it's true you discussed the Distributive Property, however, what these people are talking about is The Distributive Law which isn't the same thing (though people often call it the wrong name), and makes the question completely unambiguous. You literally can't move on from the "B", Brackets, in the rules until there are no brackets left - the B is literally short for "solve Brackets" (every letter is "solve (something)"), and so anyone who does the division before solving the brackets has just violated the order of operations rules.

[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 6 months ago

No matter how many times I explain that this is a notation for multiplication

It ISN'T a notation for multiplication - it's a notation for a factorised term, and if you ignore The Distributive Law going back the other way then you just broke the factorised term dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110886637077371439

any competent person that has to write out one of these equations will do so in a way that leaves no ambiguity.

This one already does have no ambiguity.