this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
879 points (96.5% liked)

Memes

45731 readers
533 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
879
6÷2(1+2) (programming.dev)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by wischi 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 :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

So you were taught strong juxtaposition then, where the implicit multiplication takes priority?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

if it was 6÷2x(2+1) they suggested do division and mult from left to right, but 6÷2(2+1) implied a relationship between the number outside the parenthesis and inside them, and as soon as you broke those () you had to do the multiplication immediately that is connected to them. Like some models of calculatora do. wasn't till a few yeara ago that I heard people were doing it differently.

[–] SmartmanApps 2 points 8 months ago

if it was 6÷2x(2+1) they suggested do division and mult from left to right, but 6÷2(2+1)

Correct! Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols, so 6÷2x(2+1) is 3 terms - 6, 2, and (2+1) - whereas 6÷2(2+1) is 2 terms - 6 and 2(2+1), and the latter term has a precedence of "brackets", NOT "multiplication". Multiplication refers literally to multiplication signs, which are only present in your first example (hence evaluated with a different order than your second example).

Also noted that the OP has ignored your comment, seeing as how you pointed out the unambiguous way to do it.