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 :)

  • Perfide@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, those companies aren’t wrong, but they’re not entirely right either. The answer to “6 ÷ 2(1+2)” is 1 on those calculators because that is a badly written equation and you(not literally you, to be clear) should feel bad for writing it, and the calculators can’t handle it with their rigid hardcoded logic. The ones that do give the correct answer of 9 on that equation will get other equations wrong that it shouldn’t be, again because the logic is hardcoded.

    That doesn’t change the fact that that equation worked out on paper is absolutely 9 based on modern rules of math. Calculate the parentheses first, you then have 6 ÷ 2(3). We could solve from here, but to make the point extra clear I’m going to actually expand this out to explicit multiplication. “2(3)” is the same as “2 x 3”, so we can rewrite the equation as “6 ÷ 2 x 3”. All operators now inarguably have equal precedence, which means the only factor left in which order to do the operations is left to right, and thus division first. The answer can only be 9.

    • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’d ever taken any advanced math, you’d see that the answer is 1 all day. The implicit multiplication is done before the division because anyone taking advanced math would see 2(1+2) as a term that must be resolved first. The answer still lies in the ambiguity of the way the problem is written though. If the author used fractions instead of that stupid division symbol, there would be no ambiguity. It’s either 6/2 x 3 = 9 or [6/(2x3)] = 1. Comment formatting aside, if someone put 6 in the numerator, and then did or did NOT put all the rest in the denominator underneath a horizontal bar, it would be obvious.

      TL;DR It’s still a formatting issue, but 9 is definitely not the clear and only answer.

        • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

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

          (emphasis mine)

          • 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?
            • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • 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…

      • The answer still lies in the ambiguity of the way the problem is written though

        But it’s not ambiguous, as per the reason you already gave.

        If the author used fractions instead of that stupid division symbol

        If you use fractions then the whole thing is a single term, if you use division it’s 2 terms.

        9 is definitely not the clear and only answer

        1 is definitely the only answer.

    • those calculators because that is a badly written equation

      It’s not badly written, and the reason Texas Instruments gets it wrong is right there in their manual (disobeys The Distributive Law).

      modern rules of math

      The order of operations rules haven’t changed in at least 100 years, and more likely at least 400 years. Don’t listen to Youtubers who can’t cite a single Maths textbook.

      “2(3)” is the same as “2 x 3”

      No, it’s the same as (2x3), as per The Distributive Law and Terms.