this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
858 points (96.4% liked)

Memes

45730 readers
1075 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
858
6÷2(1+2) (programming.dev)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
521 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If you’d ever taken any advanced math, you’d see that the answer is 1 all day

Don't need to do advanced Maths - every rule you need to know for this problem is taught in Year 7.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Always remember to solve using PEMDAS once you've used the distributive property!" Link%20and%20subtraction%20(S).)

(emphasis mine)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And...? Not sure what your point is, but the link is VERY badly worded...

  1. The Distributive Law and The Distributive Property aren't the same thing - he's applying The Distributive Law, but mistakenly calling it The Distributive Property (a lot of people make that mistake). The latter is merely a property in Maths (like the commutative property, the associative property, etc.), the former an actual rule of Maths The Distributive Law
  2. Applying the Distributive Law - i.e. expanding brackets/parentheses - is part of solving brackets. i.e. the first step in BEDMAS/PEMDAS. There's no "once you've used", you've already started!
  3. As I already said, this is taught in Year 7, so I'm not sure what your point is?
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That you're still wrong? As I said, the true answer is that the problem is written poorly due to the obelus and thus is open to interpretation. You're entitled to your own interpretation since it's written poorly, I just find it pretty obviously less logical than multiplying using the distributive property first to resolve the term with the parentheses fully as you would in any advanced math.

Also, distributive law and distributive property are the same thing per Khan academy "The distributive property is sometimes called the distributive law of multiplication and division."

Wait till you hear that "i before e except after c" wasn't true either. It's wild that you think 7th grade math overrules grad school math though lol.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

That you’re still wrong?

About? You haven't pointed out anything that's wrong.

the problem is written poorly due to the obelus and thus is open to interpretation

Oh, you're one of those people. Good, maybe we can finally get an answer then (this was also talked about in the blog). What other interpretation of an obelus is possible other than division? People keep saying it's ambiguous, but no-one has ever said why (other than some stuff that makes no sense in the context, as explained in the blog)

The distributive property is sometimes called the distributive law of multiplication and division

Yes, and sometimes people call Koalas "Koala bears", but that doesn't mean they're bears. Now bearing that in mind, read again what Khan said - the page which is called "Distributive property explained", not "Distributive Law explained".

Wait till you hear that “i before e except after c” wasn’t true either

Wait till you hear that's not a rule of Maths.

It’s wild that you think 7th grade math overrules grad school math though

Umm, never said anything of the kind...