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 :)

  • dgmib@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    What is your source for the priority of the / operator?

    i.e. why do you say 6 / 2 * 3 is unambiguous?

    Every source I’ve seen states that multiplication and division are equal priority operations. And one should clarify, either with a fraction bar (preferably) or parentheses if the order would make a difference.

    • wischi@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Same priority operations are solved from left to right. There is not a single credible calculator that would evaluate “6 / 2 * 3” to anything else but 9.

      But I challenge you to show me a calculator that says otherwise. In the blog are about 2 or 3 dozend calculators referenced by name all of them say the same thing. Instead of a calculator you can also name a single expert in the field who would say that 6 / 2 * 3 is anything but 9.

      • dgmib@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Will you accept wolfram alpha as credible source?

        https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Solidus.html

        Special care is needed when interpreting the meaning of a solidus in in-line math because of the notational ambiguity in expressions such as a/bc. Whereas in many textbooks, “a/bc” is intended to denote a/(bc), taken literally or evaluated in a symbolic mathematics languages such as the Wolfram Language, it means (a/b)×c. For clarity, parentheses should therefore always be used when delineating compound denominators.

        • Danksy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The link references “a/bc” not “a/b*c”. The first is ambiguous, the second is not.

          • Neither is ambiguous. #MathsIsNeverAmbiguous ab=(axb) by definition. Here it is referred to in Cajori nearly 100 years ago (1928), and literally every textbook example quoted by Lennes (1917) follows the same definition, as do all modern textbooks. Did you not notice that the blog didn’t refer to any Maths textbooks? Nor asked any Maths teachers about it.