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 :)
Not even remotely similar. Maths rules are fixed. The order of operations rules are at least 400 years old.
No, it isn't. The book "A history of mathematical notation" is in itself more than 100 years old.
Wow neat, and yet the thread was full of people going back and forth about how the equation can be misinterpreted based on how the order of operations can be interpreted. Thanks for your months later input though.
I only just found the thread yesterday. There's only 1 "interpretation", and the only back and forth I've seen about interpretations is about implicit multiplication, which isn't a thing, at all - it's people conflating The Distributive Law and Terms dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110925761375035558
So you are saying exactly what I said; people can misinterpret things that other people have written. Good job. Thanks again for stopping by a 3 month old thread about a dumb meme.
No, I'm not. They're "misinterpreting" something that isn't even a rule of Maths. There's no way to misinterpret the actual rules, there's no way to misinterpret the equation. There's no alternative interpretations of the notation. Someone who didn't remember the rules literally made up "implicit multiplication", and then other people argued with them about what that meant. 😂
You look like a real idiot here. I really suggest you actually read the article instead of “scanning” it. You clearly don’t even understand the term “implicit multiplication” if you’re claiming it’s made up. Implicit multiplication is not the controversial part of this equation, which you would know if you read the article and understood what people in this thread are even talking about. Stop spamming your shitty blog and just. Read. The. Article.
I stopped reading as soon as I saw the claim that the right answer was wrong. I then scanned it for any textbook references, and there were none (as expected).
Funny that you use the word "term", since Terms are ONE of the things that people are referring to when they say "implicit multiplication" - the other being The Distributive Law. i.e. Two DIFFERENT actual rules of Maths have been lumped in together in a made-up rule (by people who don't remember the actual rules).
BTW if you think it's not made-up then provide me with a Maths textbook reference that uses it. Spoiler alert: you won't find any.
It's not the ONLY controversial part of the equation - people make other mistakes with it too - but it's the biggest part. It's the mistake that most people have made.
So that's what you think of people who educate with actual Maths textbook references?
Read Maths textbooks.
Skimmed your comment and it’s wrong. Let me know if you ever decide to read the article instead of arguing against an imagined opponent.
Read it, wasn't imagined. In fact it was even worse than I thought it would be! Did you not notice about how a blog about the alleged ambiguity in order of operations actually disobeyed order of operations in a deliberately ambiguous example? I wrote 5 Fact check posts, starting here - you're welcome.
Wow you’re a slow reader LOL
I see you like to use made-up "facts", just like the blog does. Is that the best you can come up with after repeatedly insisting I should read it? (which yes, would've been a huge waste of time, exactly as I said, had I not turned it into a positive use of time by writing a fact check about it. Alleged fake news turns out to be... fake - who would've thought? Oh that's right, me :-) )
So, did you read it now? Or are you a "slow reader" and I need to wait longer for your responses?
So tell me where it's wrong.
There's nothing imaginary about the fact that he claimed it's ambiguous, and is therefore wrong. Tell me why I should read a wrong article, given I already know it's wrong.
Why would I bother to read your comment when I know it’s wrong?
You haven't told me where it's wrong yet. I already said where the article is wrong.
I’ll read your comment when you read the article. Challenge level: impossible.
I stopped reading it when I found it was wrong., and said what was wrong about it. You have still not said where mine is allegedly wrong. I'll take that as an admission that you're wrong then.
I stopped reading your comment when I saw you still hadn’t read the article.
I'll take that as an admission that you're wrong then. Bye now.
P.S. someone else just provided me with even more things which are wrong in it. Even more glad I didn't waste time reading the rest of it.
I’ll take that as admission that you’re too unintelligent to read.