Skip Navigation

6÷2(1+2)

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 :)

524

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
524 comments
  • Ah yes, simply "answer the question with an incorrect premise instead of refuting the premise." When did you stop beating your wife?

    That's not what they asked me. I have no problem answering questions that are asked in good faith.

    • I can't have stopped because I never started, because I'm not even married... See, even I can answer your bad faith question better than you answered the one @onion asked you.

      But I will give it to you that my comment should've stipulated avoiding reasonable questions.

      The difference is that there are two sets of rules already in use by large groups of people, so which do you consider correct?

      However I still think you need your eyes checked, as the end of this comment by @onion is very clearly a question asking you WHICH ruleset you consider correct.

      Unless you're refusing the notion of multiplication by juxtaposition entirely, then you must be on one side of this or the other.

      • "Which ruleset do you consider correct" presupposes, as the comment said, that there are 2 rulesets. There aren't. There's the standard, well known, and simplified model which is taught to kids, and there's the real world, where adults communicate by using context and shared understanding. Picking a side here makes no sense.

        • When the @onion said there were two different sets of rules, you know as well as I do that they meant strong vs. weak juxtaposition.

          You're right that in reality nobody would write an equation like this, and if they did they would usually provide context to help resolve it without resorting to having to guess...

          But the point of this post is exactly to point out this hole that exists in the standard order of operations, the drama that has resulted from it, and to shine some light on it.

          Picking a side makes no sense only if you have the context to otherwise resolve it... If you were told to solve this equation, and given no other context to do so, you would either have to pick a side or resolve it both ways and give both answers. In that scenario, crossing your arms and refusing to because "it doesn't make sense" would get you nowhere.

          In all honesty, I think you're acting like the people who say things like "I've never used algebra, so it was worthless teaching me it as a kid" as though there aren't people who would learn something out of this.

          • When the @onion said there were two different sets of rules, you know as well as I do that they meant strong vs. weak juxtaposition

            Neither of which is a rule in Maths, as had already been pointed out. The 2 relevant rules, both of which never got mentioned in the whole discussion, are The Distributive Law and Terms.

            You’re right that in reality nobody would write an equation like this

            No, that was wrong - they really would. 2(1+2) is the standard way to write a factorised term. i.e. a(b+c).

            hole that exists in the standard order of operations

            There's not a hole in the order of operations - there's a hole in people's memories where The Distributive Law and Terms used to be. You'll notice no students ever get this wrong, because they remember all the rules.

            given no other context to do so, you would either have to pick a side

            That "side" being follow the rules of Maths - works every time. :-)

          • You are literally so far removed from this conversation I don't know what to do with you. Good luck.

            • That's rich considering what sparked this conversation was you refusing to answer a simple question.

              Good luck to you too - with reading comprehension like your's, you might just need it.

              • with reading comprehension like your's

                Man.

                • I'll just say it again, you're the one saying this problem is completely unambiguous, with your only explanation as to why being that real people communicate as though that solves every edge case imaginable.

                  I'm just saying, if you really believe that to be the case, Good luck.

You've viewed 524 comments.