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

Memes

45751 readers
1204 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 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

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 6) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

@wischi "Funny enough all the examples that N.J. Lennes list in his letter use implicit multiplications and thus his rule could be replaced by the strong juxtaposition".

Weird they didn't need two made-up terms to get it right 100 years ago.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

The real question here is BODMAS or PEMDAS?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Interesting that Excel sees =6/2(1+2) as an invalid formula and will not calculate it (at least on mobile). =6/2*(1+2) returns 9 because it's executing the division and multiplication left to right (6/2=3*3=9).

Google Sheets (mobile) does't like it either and returns an error. =6/2*(1+2) also returns "9".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (13 children)

You state that the ambiguity comes from the implicit multiplication and not the use of the obelus.

I.e. That 6 ÷ 2 x 3 is not ambiguous

What is your source for your statement that there is an accepted convention for the priority of the iinline obelus or solidus symbol?

As far as I’m aware, every style guide states that a fraction bar (preferably) or parentheses should be used to resolve the ambiguity when there are additional operators to the right of a solidus, and that an obelus should never be used.

Which therefore would make it the division expressed with an obelus that creates the ambiguity, and not the implicit multiplication.

(Rest of the post is great)

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (10 children)

isn't that division sign I only saw Americans use written like this (÷) means it's a fraction? so it's 6÷2, since the divisor (or what is it called in english, the bottom half of the fraction) isn't in parenthesis, so it would be foolish to put the whole 2(1+2) down there, there's no reason for that.

so it's (6/2)*(1+2) which is 3*3 = 9.

the other way around would be 6÷(2(1+2)) if the whole expression is in the divisor and than that's 1.

tho I'm not really proficient in math, I have eventually failed it in university, but if I remember my teachers correctly, this should be the way. but again, where I live, we never use the ÷ sign, only in elementary school where we divide on paper. instead we use the fraction form, and with that, these kind of seemingly ambiguous expressions doesn't exist.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›