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 :)
That's cool. I'm not sure what you mean about not using it as a source though, because that was also my point! If you want sources for how this should actually be done (and what actually is taught at school), then see my thread - contains actual textbook references (where there's a screenshot of a textbook, the place it's come from is in the top-left of the screenshot), actual historical documents (Lennes and Cajori), worked examples, proofs, etc. You said you believe in "strong juxtaposition", so we're kinda in agreement - I'm just pointing out that the actual rules are Terms and The Distributive Law (i.e. 2 different rules have been lumped together as one under the "strong juxtaposition" banner), neither of which is discussed anywhere in the blog (and when I, and others, have pointed this out, the OP has ignored us and downvoted our comments). I also made 5 fact check posts rebutting the false/misleading claims made in the blog - just sort the comments here by "new" and you'll see them (no prizes for guessing who downvoted them).
In other words, I wasn't saying "don't pay attention to any blog posts" (which I think is what you thought I meant?), I was saying "don't pay attention to this blog post" (for multiple reasons that I've posted in many places in here).
I am thinking then we both understood some and misunderstood some.
My point was, if I want to critic the blog for it's internally odd Argumentation, then obviously it makes sense to use the blog as a source and it is in fact the only valid source for the critic of internally odd Argumentation.
My intention wasn't to use the blog as a source for anything beyond that.
Yeah, I thought maybe you meant that, but I wasn't sure, and in any case I wanted to make clear it's totally worthless to use as a source for anything else (for the reasons I mentioned). :-)
Fair, thanks for the talk
Well thanks to you too for a proper conversation. :-) There's a lot of people here wanting to pull out their pitchforks over the smallest thing.
e.g. you made a comment about teaching the "scientific" method to kids, and I can tell you as a teacher that we already do (but the OP never looked at any Maths textbooks, nor asked any Maths teachers) :-)