this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
787 points (96.6% liked)

Memes

45581 readers
1 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
787
6÷2(1+2) (programming.dev)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 :)

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] octesian@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

I don't remember everything, but I remember the first two operations are exponents then parentheses. Edit: wait is it the other way around?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Meanwhile, I'm over in the corner like

[–] amio@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Forgot the algebra using fruit emoji or whatever the fuck.

Bonus points for the stuff where suddenly one of the symbols has changed and it's "supposedly" 1/2 or 2/3 etc. of a banana now, without that symbol having been defined.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Hi, I’m stupid, is it 1+2 first, then multiple it by 2, then divide 6 by 6?

Or is it 1+2, then divide 6 by 2, then multiple?

I think it’s the first one but I’ve got no idea.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 9 points 2 years ago (5 children)

It's actually "both". There are two conventions. One is a bit more popular in science and engineering and the other one in the general population. It's actually even more complicated than that (thus the long blog post) but the most correct answer would be to point out that the implicit multiplication after the division is ambiguous. So it's not really "solvable" in that form without context.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Perfide@reddthat.com 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (24 children)

You lost me on the section when you started going into different calculators, but I read the rest of the post. Well written even if I ultimately disagree!

The reason imo there is ambiguity with these math problems is bad/outdated teaching. The way I was taught pemdas, you always do the left-most operations first, while otherwise still following the ordering.

Doing this for 6÷2(1+2), there is no ambiguity that the answer is 9. You do your parentheses first as always, 6÷2(3), and then since division and multiplication are equal in ordering weight, you do the division first because it's the left most operation, leaving us 3(3), which is of course 9.

If someone wrote this equation with the intention that the answer is 1, they wrote the equation wrong, simple as that.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] cobra89@beehaw.org 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

While I agree the problem as written is ambiguous and should be written with explicit operators, I have 1 argument to make. In pretty much every other field if we have a question the answer pretty much always ends up being something along the lines of "well the experts do this" or "this professor at this prestigious university says this", or "the scientific community says". The fact that this article even states that academic circles and "scientific" calculators use strong juxtaposition, while basic education and basic calculators use weak juxtaposition is interesting. Why do we treat math differently than pretty much every other field? Shouldn't strong juxtaposition be the precedent and the norm then just how the scientific community sets precedents for literally every other field? We should start saying weak juxtaposition is wrong and just settle on one.

This has been my devil's advocate argument.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] The_Vampire@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (49 children)

Having read your article, I contend it should be:
P(arentheses)
E(xponents)
M(ultiplication)D(ivision)
A(ddition)S(ubtraction)
and strong juxtaposition should be thrown out the window.

Why? Well, to be clear, I would prefer one of them die so we can get past this argument that pops up every few years so weak or strong doesn't matter much to me, and I think weak juxtaposition is more easily taught and more easily supported by PEMDAS. I'm not saying it receives direct support, but rather the lack of instruction has us fall back on what we know as an overarching rule (multiplication and division are equal). Strong juxtaposition has an additional ruling to PEMDAS that specifies this specific case, whereas weak juxtaposition doesn't need an additional ruling (and I would argue anyone who says otherwise isn't logically extrapolating from the PEMDAS ruleset). I don't think the sides are as equal as people pose.

To note, yes, PEMDAS is a teaching tool and yes there are obviously other ways of thinking of math. But do those matter? The mathematical system we currently use will work for any usecase it does currently regardless of the juxtaposition we pick, brackets/parentheses (as well as better ordering of operations when writing them down) can pick up any slack. Weak juxtaposition provides better benefits because it has less rules (and is thusly simpler).

But again, I really don't care. Just let one die. Kill it, if you have to.

load more comments (49 replies)
[–] friendly_ghost@beehaw.org 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That blog post was awesome, thanks for doing that work and letting us know about it!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nadiaraven@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I found a few typos. In the 2nd paragraph under the section "strong feelings", you use "than" when it should be "then". More importantly, when talking about distributive properties, you say x(x+z)=xy+xz. I believe you meant x(y+z)=xy+xz.

Otherwise, I enjoyed that read. I'm embarrassed to say that I did think pemdas meant multiplication came before division, however I'm proud to say that I've unconsciously known that it's important to avoid the ambiguity by putting parentheses everywhere for example when I make formulas in spreadsheets. Which by the way, spreadsheets generally allow multiplication by juxtaposition.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My years out of school has made me forget about how division notation is actually supposed to work and how genuinely useless the ÷ and / symbols are outside the most basic two-number problems. And it's entirely me being dumb because I've already written problems as 6÷(2(1+2)) to account for it before. Me brain dun work right ;~;

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

There's no forms consensus on which one is correct. To avoid misunderstanding mathematicians use a horizontal bar.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rinox@feddit.it 6 points 2 years ago (6 children)

I recall learning in school that it should be left to right when in doubt. Probably a cop-out from the teacher

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] mihnt@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

When I used to play WoW years ago I'd always put -6 x 6 - 6 = -12 in trade chat and they would all lose their minds. Adding that incorrect solution usually got them more riled up than having no solution.

[–] ethd@beehaw.org 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't have much to say on this, other than that I appreciate how well-written this deep dive is and I appreciate you for writing it. People get so polarized with these viral math problems and it baffles me.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I guess if you wrote it out with a different annotation it would be

‎ ‎ 6

-‐--------‐--------------

2(1+2)

=

6

-‐--------‐--------------

2×3

=

6

--‐--------‐--------------

6

=1

I hate the stupid things though

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TokyoMonsterTrucker@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The order of operations is not part of a holy text that must be blindly followed. If these numbers had units and we knew what quantity we were trying to solve for, there would be no argument whatsoever about what to do. This is a question that never comes up in physics because you can use dimensional analysis to check to see if you did the algebra correctly. Context matters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I feel like if a blog post presents 2 options and labels one as the "scientific" one... And it is a deserved Label. Then there is probably a easy case to be made that we should teach children how to understand scientific papers and solve the equation in it themselves.

Honestly I feel like it reads better too but that is just me

[–] wischi@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago (15 children)

I'm not sure if I'd call it the "scientific" one. I'd actually say that the weak juxtaposition is just the simple one schools use because they don't want to confuse everyone. Scientist actually use both and make sure to prevent ambiguity. IMHO the main takeaway is that there is no consensus and one has to be careful to not write ambiguous expressions.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›