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 :)

  • Because as a high school Maths teacher as soon as I saw the assertion that it was ambiguous I knew the article was wrong. From there I scanned to see if there were any Maths textbooks at any point, and there wasn’t. Just another wrong article.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          010 months ago

          Mathematical notation however can be. Because it’s conventions as long as it’s not defined on the same page.

          • Mathematical notation however can be.

            Nope. Different regions use different symbols, but within those regions everyone knows what each symbol is, and none of those symbols are in this question anyway.

            Because it’s conventions as long as it’s not defined on the same page

            The rules can be found in any high school Maths textbook.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              110 months ago

              Let’s do a little plausibility analysis, shall we? First, we have humans, you know, famously unable to agree on an universal standard for anything. Then we have me, who has written a PhD thesis for which he has read quite some papers about math and computational biology. Then we have an article that talks about the topic at hand, but that you for some unscientific and completely ridiculous reason refuse to read.

              Let me just tell you one last time: you’re wrong, you should know that it’s possible that you’re wrong, and not reading a thing because it could convince you is peak ignorance.

              I’m done here, have a good one, and try not to ruin your students too hard.

              • unable to agree on an universal standard for anything

                And yet the order of operations rules have been agreed upon for at least 100 years, possibly at least 400 years.

                unscientific and completely ridiculous reason refuse to read

                The fact that I saw it was wrong in the first paragraph is a ridiculous reason to not read the rest?

                Let me just tell you one last time: you’re wrong

                And let me point out again you have yet to give a single reason for that statement, never mind any actual evidence.

                you should know that it’s possible that you’re wrong

                You know proofs, by definition, can’t be wrong, right? There are proofs in my thread, unless you have some unscientific and completely ridiculous reason to refuse to read - to quote something I recently heard someone say.

                try not to ruin your students too hard

                My students? Oh, they’re doing good. Thanks for asking! :-) BTW the test included order of operations.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  110 months ago

                  Just read the article. You can’t prove something with incomplete evidence. And the article has evidence that both conventions are in use.

                  • You can’t prove something with incomplete evidence

                    If something is disproven, it’s disproven - no need for any further evidence.

                    BTW did you read my thread? If you had you would know what the rules are which are being broken.

                    the article has evidence that both conventions are in use

                    I’m fully aware that some people obey the rules of Maths (they’re actual documented rules, not “conventions”), and some people don’t - I don’t need to read the article to find that out.