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 :)

  • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.mlEnglish
    114·
    11 months 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.mlEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

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

        (emphasis mine)

        • 💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱@programming.devEnglish
          11·
          9 months ago

          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.mlEnglish
            11·
            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.

            • 💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱@programming.devEnglish
              1·
              9 months ago

              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…

    • 💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱@programming.devEnglish
      11·
      9 months ago

      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.