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

Memes

45745 readers
1632 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
857
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 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I've seen a calculator interpret 1 ÷ 2π as ½π which was kinda funny

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

All calculators that are listed in the article as following weak juxtaposition would interpreted it that way.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Hi! Nice blog post. Since you asked for feedback I'll point out the one thing I didn't really understand. You explain the difference between the calculators by showing excerpts from the manuals and you highlight that in the first manual, implicit multiplication is prioritised. But the text you underlined only refers to implicit multiplication involving special expressions(?) like pi, e, sqrt or log, and nothing about "regular" implicit multiplication like 2(1+3). So while your photos of the calculator results are great proof that the two models use a different order of operations, to me the manuals were a bit confusing since they did not actually seem to prove your point for the example math problems you are discussing. Or maybe I missed something?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

You are right the manual isn't very clear here. My guess is that parentheses are also considered Type B functions. I actually chose those calculators because I have them here and can test things and because they split the implicit multiplication priority. Most other calculators just state "implicit multiplication" and that's it.

My guess is that the list of Type B functions is not complete but implicit multiplication with parentheses should be considered important enough for it to be documented.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is a very nice piece that had so much information I did not know. Toward the top of the article I was wishing for footnotes, references or something that would indicate it was not just your opinion, but as I got further into the piece you provided so many great references. I thought the calculator manuals were particularly accessible and convincing. Thanks for a great read!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (9 children)

What the heck are you all fighting about? It’s BODMAS.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (5 children)

That's cool and Imma let you finish but I'm not a mathematician and the answer is 9.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Very cool article on an aspect of math that I've never thought too deeply about before 👍

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

I am so glad that nothing I do in life will ever cause this problem to matter to me.

The way I was taught in school, the answer is clearly 1, but I did read the blog post and I understand why that's actually ambiguous.

Fortunately, I don't have to care, so will sleep well knowing the answer is 1, and that I'm as correct as anyone else. :-p

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›