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 :)
If you are so sure that you are right and already “know it all”, why bother and even read this? There is no comment section to argue.
I beg to differ. You utter fool! You created a comment section yourself on lemmy and you are clearly wrong about everything!
You take the mean of 1 and 9 which is 4.5!
/j
Right, because 5 rounds down to 4.5
@Prunebutt meant 4.5! and not 4.5. Because it’s not an integer we have to use the gamma function, the extension of the factorial function to get the actual mean between 1 and 9 => 4.5! = 52.3428 which looks about right 🤣
🤣 I wasn’t even sure if I should post it on lemmy. I mainly wrote it so I can post it under other peoples posts that actually are intended to artificially create drama to hopefully show enough people what the actual problems are with those puzzles.
But I probably am a fool and this is not going anywhere because most people won’t read a 30min article about those math problems :-)
Actually the correct answer is clearly 0.2609 if you follow the order of operations correctly:
6/2(1+2)
= 6/23
= 0.26🤣 I’m not sure if you read the post but I also wrote about that (the paragraph right before “What about the real world?”)
I did read the post (well done btw), but I guess I must have missed that. And here I thought I was a comedic genius
I did (skimmed it, at least) and I liked it. 🙃
deleted by creator
While I agree the problem as written is ambiguous and should be written with explicit operators, I have 1 argument to make. In pretty much every other field if we have a question the answer pretty much always ends up being something along the lines of “well the experts do this” or “this professor at this prestigious university says this”, or “the scientific community says”. The fact that this article even states that academic circles and “scientific” calculators use strong juxtaposition, while basic education and basic calculators use weak juxtaposition is interesting. Why do we treat math differently than pretty much every other field? Shouldn’t strong juxtaposition be the precedent and the norm then just how the scientific community sets precedents for literally every other field? We should start saying weak juxtaposition is wrong and just settle on one.
This has been my devil’s advocate argument.
While I agree the problem as written is ambiguous
It’s not.
the answer pretty much always ends up being something along the lines of “well the experts do this” or “this professor at this prestigious university says this”, or “the scientific community says”.
Agree completely! Notice how they ALWAYS leave out high school Maths teachers and textbooks? You know, the ones who actually TEACH this topic. Always people OTHER THAN the people/books who teach this topic (and so always end up with the wrong conclusion).
while basic education and basic calculators use weak juxtaposition
Literally no-one in education uses so-called “weak juxtaposition” - there’s no such thing. There’s The Distributive Law and Terms, both of which use so-called “strong juxtaposition”. Most calculators do too.
Shouldn’t strong juxtaposition be the precedent and the norm
It is. In fact it’s the rules (The Distributive Law and Terms).
We should start saying weak juxtaposition is wrong
Maths teachers already DO say it’s wrong.
This has been my devil’s advocate argument.
No, this is mostly a Maths teacher argument. You started off weak (saying its ambiguous), but then after that almost everything you said is actually correct - maybe you should be a Maths teacher. :-)
I tried to be careful to not suggest that scientist only use strong juxtaposition. They use both but are typically very careful to not write ambiguous stuff and practically never write implicit multiplications between numbers because they just simplify it.
At this point it’s probably to late to really fix it and the only viable option is to be aware why and how this ambiguous and not write it that way.
As stated in the “even more ambiguous math notations” it’s far from the only ambiguous situation and it’s practically impossible (and not really necessary) to fix.
Scientist and engineers also know the issue and navigate around it. It’s really a non-issue for experts and the problem is only how and what the general population is taught.
@wischi “Funny enough all the examples that N.J. Lennes list in his letter use implicit multiplications and thus his rule could be replaced by the strong juxtaposition”.
Weird they didn’t need two made-up terms to get it right 100 years ago.
Indeed Duncan. :-)
his rule could be replaced by the strong juxtaposition
“strong juxtaposition” already existed even then in Terms (which Lennes called Terms/Products, but somehow missed the implication of that) and The Distributive Law, so his rule was never adopted because it was never needed - it was just Lennes #LoudlyNotUnderstandingThings (like Terms, which by his own admission was in all the textbooks). 1917 (ii) - Lennes’ letter (Terms and operators)
In other words…
Funny enough all the examples that N.J. Lennes list in his letter use
…Terms/Products., as we do today in modern high school Maths textbooks (but we just use Terms in this context, not Products).
What if the real answer is the friends we made along the way?
That’d be good, but what I’ve found so far here is a whole bunch of people who don’t like being told the actual facts of the matter! 😂
I guess if you wrote it out with a different annotation it would be
6
-‐--------‐--------------
2(1+2)
=
6
-‐--------‐--------------
2×3
=
6
–‐--------‐--------------
6
=1
I hate the stupid things though
deleted by creator
Escape symbols?
deleted by creator
6⁄2(1+2) ⇒ 6⁄2*3 ⇒ 6⁄6 ⇒ 1
You’re more patient than me to go to that trouble! 😂 But yeah, looks good. Just one technicality (and relates to how many people arrive at the wrong answer), the 2x3 should be in brackets. Yes if you had a proper fraction bar it wouldn’t matter, but that’s what’s missing with inline writing, and is compensated for with brackets (and brackets can’t be removed unless there’s only 1 term inside). In your original comment, it does indeed look like 6/(2x3), but, to illustrate the issue with what you wrote, as soon as I quoted it, it now looks like (6/2)x3 in my comment.
FACT CHECK 5/5
most people just dismiss that, because they “already know” the answer
Maths teachers already know how to do Maths. Huh, who would’ve thought? Next thing you’ll be telling me is English teachers know the rules of grammar and how to spell!
and a two-sentence comment can’t convince them how and why it’s ambiguous
Literally NOTHING can convince a Maths teacher it’s ambiguous - Maths teachers already know all the rules of Maths, and which ones you’re breaking
Why read something if you have nothing to learn about the topic that’s so simple that you know for a fact that you are right
To fact check it for the benefit of others
At this point I hope you understand how and why the original problem is ambiguous
At this point I hope you understand why it isn’t ambiguous. Tip: next time check some Maths textbooks or ask a Maths teacher
that one of the two shouldn’t even be a thing
Neither of them is a thing
not everybody shares your opinion and preferences
Facts you mean. The rules of Maths are facts
There is no mathematically true
There absolutely is! You just chose not to ask any experts about it
the most important thing with this “viral math” expressions is to recognize that
…they are all solvable by following the rules of Maths
One could argue that there should also be a strong connection between coefficients and variables (like in r=C/2π)
There is - The Distributive Law and Terms
it’s fine to stick to “BIDMAS” in school but be aware that that’s not the full story
No, BIDMAS and left to right is the full story
If you encounter such discussions in the wild you could just post a link to this page
No, post a link to this order of operations thread index - it has textbook references, proofs, memes, worked examples, the works!
Honestly, I do disagree that the question is ambiguous. The lack of parenthetical separation is itself a choice that informs order of operations. If the answer was meant to be 9, then the 6/2 would be isolated in parenthesis.
Did you read the blog post?
Hooray! Correct! Anyone who downvoted or disagrees with this needs to read this instead. Includes actual Maths textbooks references.
It’s covered in the blog, but this is likely due to a bias towards Strong Juxtaposition rules for parentheses rather than Weak. It’s common for those who learned math into advanced algebra/ beginning Calc and beyond, since that’s the usual method for higher math education. But it isn’t “correct”, it’s one of two standard ways of doing it. The ambiguity in the question is intentional and pervasive.
But it isn’t “correct”
It is correct - it’s The Distributive Law.
it’s one of two standard ways of doing it.
There’s only 1 way - the “other way” was made up by people who don’t remember The Distributive Law and/or Terms (more likely both), and very much goes against the standards.
The ambiguity in the question is
…zero.
My argument is specifically that using no separation shows intent for which way to interpret and should not default to weak juxtaposition.
Choosing not to use (6/2)(1+2) implies to me to use the only other interpretation.
There’s also the difference between 6/2(1+2) and 6/2*(1+2). I think the post has a point for the latter, but not the former.
I don’t know what you want, man. The blog’s goal is to describe the problem and why it comes about and your response is “Following my logic, there is no confusion!” when there clearly is confusion in the wider world here. The blog does a good job of narrowing down why there’s confusion, you’re response doesn’t add anything or refute anything. It’s just… you bragging? I’m not certain what your point is.
your response is “Following my logic, there is no confusion!”
That’s because the actual rules of Maths have all been followed, including The Distributive Law and Terms.
there clearly is confusion in the wider world here
Amongst people who don’t remember The Distributive Law and Terms.
The blog does a good job of narrowing down why there’s confusion
The blog ignores The Distributive Law and Terms. Notice the complete lack of Maths textbook references in it?
I originally had the same reasoning but came to the opposite conclusion. Multiplication and division have the same precedence, so I read the operations from left to right unless noted otherwise with parentheses. Thus:
6/2=3
3(1+2)=9
For me to read the whole of 2(1+2) as the denominator in a fraction I would expect it to be isolated in parentheses: 6/(2(1+2)).
Reading the blog post, I understand the ambiguity now, but i’m still fascinated that we had the same criticism (no parentheses implies intent) but had opposite conclusions.
6/2=3
3(1+2)=9
You just did division before brackets, which goes against order of operations rules.
For me to read the whole of 2(1+2) as the denominator in a fraction
You just need to know The Distributive Law and Terms.
Read the linked article
The linked article is wrong. Read this - has, you know, actual Maths textbook references in it, unlike the article.
Nope it’s bedmas since everything is brackets
I’ve seen a calculator interpret 1 ÷ 2π as ½π which was kinda funny
An e-calculator I’m guessing? (either that or Texas Instruments) Desmos USED TO interpret that correctly, but then they made a change with automatically turning division into fractions and broke it (because if you’ve specified division then it’s not a fraction) dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/111164851485070719
I believe it was a app , yes
All calculators that are listed in the article as following weak juxtaposition would interpreted it that way.
And they’re all wrong dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/111164851485070719
The ambiguous ones at least have some discussion around it. The ones I’ve seen thenxouple times I had the misfortune of seeing them on Facebook were just straight up basic order of operations questions. They weren’t ambiguous, they were about a 4th grade math level, and all thenpeople from my high-school that complain that school never taught them anything were completely failing to get it.
I’m talking like 4+1x2 and a bunch of people were saying it was 10.
Starting a new comment thread (I gave up on reading all of them). I’m a high school Maths teacher/tutor. You can read my Mastodon thread about it at Order of operations thread index (I’m giving you the link to the thread index so you can just jump around whichever parts you want to read without having to read the whole thing). Includes Maths textbooks, historical references, proofs, memes, the works.
And for all the people quoting university people, this topic (order of operations) is not taught at university - it is taught in high school. Why would you listen to someone who doesn’t teach the topic? (have you not wondered why they never quote Maths textbooks?)
#DontForgetDistribution #MathsIsNeverAmbiguous
I’m curious if you actually read the whole (admittedly long) page linked in this post, or did you stop after realizing that it was saying something you found disagreeable?
I’m a high school Maths teacher/tutor
What will you tell your students if they show you two different models of calculator, from the same company, where the same sequence of buttons on each produces a different result than on the other, and the user manuals for each explain clearly why they’re doing what they are? “One of these calculators is just objectively wrong, trust me on this, #MathsIsNeverAmbiguous” ?
The truth is that there are many different math notations which often do lead to ambiguities.
In the case of the notation you’re dismissing in your (hilarious!) meme here, well, outside of anglophone high schools, people don’t often encounter the obelus notation for division at all except for as a button on calculators. And there its meaning is ambiguous (as clearly explained in OP’s link).
Check out some of the other things which the “÷” symbol can mean in math!
#MathNotationsAreOftenAmbiguous
did you stop after realizing that it was saying something you found disagreeable
I stopped when he said it was ambiguous (it’s not, as per the rules of Maths), then scanned the rest to see if there were any Maths textbook references, and there wasn’t (as expected). Just another wrong blog.
What will you tell your students if they show you two different models of calculator, from the same company
Has literally never happened. Texas Instruments is the only brand who continues to do it wrong (and it’s right there in their manual why) - all the other brands who were doing it wrong have reverted back to doing it correctly (there’s a Youtube video about this somewhere). I have a Sharp calculator (who have literally always done it correctly) and most of my students have Casio, so it’s never been an issue.
trust me on this
I don’t ask them to trust me - I’m a Maths teacher, I teach them the rules of Maths. From there they can see for themselves which calculators are wrong and why. Our job as teachers is for our students to eventually not need us anymore and work things out for themselves.
The truth is that there are many different math notations which often do lead to ambiguities
Not within any region there isn’t. e.g. European countries who use a comma instead of a decimal point. If you’re in one of those countries it’s a comma, if you’re not then it’s a decimal point.
people don’t often encounter the obelus notation for division at all
In Australia it’s the only thing we ever use, and from what I’ve seen also the U.K. (every U.K. textbook I’ve seen uses it).
Check out some of the other things which the “÷” symbol can mean in math!
Go back and read it again and you’ll see all of those examples are worded in the past tense, except for ISO, and all ISO has said is “don’t use it”, for reasons which haven’t been specified, and in any case everyone in a Maths-related position is clearly ignoring them anyway (as you would. I’ve seen them over-reach in Computer Science as well, where they also get ignored by people in the industry).
Has literally never happened. Texas Instruments is the only brand who continues to do it wrong […] all the other brands who were doing it wrong have reverted
Ok so you’re saying it never happened, but then in the very next sentence you acknowledge that you know it is happening with TI today, and then also admit you know that it did happen with some other brands in the past?
But, if you had read the linked post before writing numerous comments about it, you’d see that it documents that the ambiguity actually exists among both old and currently shipping models from TI, HP, Casio, and Canon, today, and that both behaviors are intentional and documented.
There is no bug; none of these calculators is “wrong”.
The truth is that there are many different math notations which often do lead to ambiguities
Not within any region there isn’t.
Ok, this is the funniest thing I’ve read so far today, but if this is what you are teaching high school students it is also rather sad because you are doing them a disservice by teaching them that there is no ambiguity where there actually is.
If OP’s blog post is too long for you (it is quite long) i recommend reading this one instead: The PEMDAS Paradox.
In Australia it’s the only thing we ever use, and from what I’ve seen also the U.K. (every U.K. textbook I’ve seen uses it).
By “we” do you mean high school teachers, or Australian society beyond high school? Because, I’m pretty sure the latter isn’t true, and I’m skeptical of the former. I thought generally the ÷ symbol mostly stops being used (except as a calculator button) even before high school, basically as soon as fractions are taught. Do you have textbooks where the fraction bar is used concurrently with the obelus (÷) division symbol?
Ok so you’re saying it never happened, but then in the very next sentence you acknowledge that you know it is happening with TI today
You asked me what I do if my students show me 2 different answers what do I tell them, and I told you that has never happened. None of my students have ever had one of the calculators which does it wrong.
that both behaviors are intentional and documented
Correct. I already noted earlier (maybe with someone else) that the TI calculator manual says that they obey the Primary School order of operations, which doesn’t work with High School order of operations. i.e. when the brackets have a coefficient. The TI calculator will give a correct answer for 6/(1+2) and 6/2x(1+2), but gives a wrong answer for 6/2(1+2), and it’s in their manual why. I saw one Youtuber who was showing the manual scroll right past it! It was right there on screen why it does it wrong and she just scrolled down from there without even looking at it!
none of these calculators is “wrong”.
Any calculator which fails to obey The Distributive Law is wrong. It is disobeying a rule of Maths.
there is no ambiguity where there actually is.
There actually isn’t. We use decimal points (not commas like some European countries), the obelus (not colon like some European countries), etc., so no, there is never any ambiguity. And the expression in question here follows those same notations (it has an obelus, not a colon), so still no ambiguity.
i recommend reading this one instead: The PEMDAS Paradox
Yes, I’ve read that one before. Makes the exact same mistakes. Claims it’s ambiguous while at the same time completely ignoring The Distributive Law and Terms. I’ll even point out a specific thing (of many) where they miss the point…
So the disagreement distills down to this: Does it feel like a(b) should always be interchangeable with axb? Or does it feel like a(b) should always be interchangeable with (ab)? You can’t say both.
ab=(axb) by definition. It’s in Cajori, it’s in today’s Maths textbooks. So a(b) isn’t interchangeable with axb, it’s only interchangeable with (axb) (or (ab) or ab). That’s one of the most common mistakes I see. You can’t remove brackets if there’s still more than 1 term left inside, but many people do and end up with a wrong answer.
By “we” do you mean high school teachers, or Australian society beyond high school?
I said “In Australia” (not in Australian high school), so I mean all of Australia.
Because, I’m pretty sure the latter isn’t true
Definitely is. I have never seen anyone here ever use a colon to mean divide. It’s only ever used for a ratio.
Do you have textbooks where the fraction bar is used concurrently with the obelus (÷) division symbol?
All my textbooks use both. Did you read my thread? If you use a fraction bar then that is a single term. If you use an obelus (or colon if you’re in a country which uses colon for division) then that is 2 terms. I covered all of that in my thread.
EDITED TO ADD: If you don’t use both then how do you write to divide by a fraction?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
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
FACT CHECK 3/5
It’s only a matter of taste and how widespread a convention or notation is
The rules are in every high school Maths textbook. The notation for your country is in your country’s Maths textbooks
There are no arguments or proofs about what definition is correct
1+1=2 by definition (or whatever the notation is in your country). If you write 1+1=3 then that is wrong by definition
I found a lot of explanations online that were either half-assed or just plain wrong
And you seem to have included most of them so far - “implicit multiplication”, “weak juxtaposition”, “conventions”, etc.
You either were taught something wrong or you misremember it.
Spoiler alert: It’s always the latter
IMHO the mnemonics would be better without “division” and “subtraction”, because it would force people to think about it before blindly applying something the wrong way – “PEMA” for example. Parentheses, exponentiation, multiplication, addition
In fact what would happen is now people wouldn’t know in what order to do division and subtraction, having removed them from the mnemonic (and there’s absolutely no reason at all to remove them - you can do everything in the mnemonic order and it works, provided you also obey the left-to-right rule, which is there to make sure you obey left associativity)
parenthesis and exponents students typically don’t learn the order of operations through some mnemonics they remember them through exercise
That’s not true at all. Have you not read through some of these arguments? They’re all full of “Use BEDMAS!”, “Use PEMDAS!”, “It’s PEMDAS not BEDMAS!” - quite clearly these people DID learn order of operations through the mnemonics
trying to remember some random acronyms
There’s no requirement to memorise any acronym - you can always just make up your own if you find that easier! I did that a lot in university to remember things during the exam
they also state to “not use × to express a simple product”
…because a product is a Term, and to insert a x would break it into 2 Terms
A product is the result of a multiplication
The center dot also should not be used to mean a simple product
Exact same reason. They are saying “don’t turn 1 term into 2 terms”. To put that into the words that you keep using, “don’t use weak juxtaposition”
Nobody at the American Physical Society (at least I hope) would say that 6/2×3 equals one, because that’s just bonkers
Because it would break the rule of left associativity (i.e. left to right). No-one is advocating “multiplication before division” where it would violate left to right (usually by “multiplication” they’re actually referring to Terms, and yes, you literally always have to do Terms before Division)
÷ (obelus), : (colon) or / (solidus), but that is not the case and they can be used interchangeably without any difference in meaning. There are no widespread conventions, that would attribute different meanings
Yes there is. Some countries use : for divide, whereas other countries use it for ratio
most standards forbid multiple divisions with inline notation, for example expressions like this 12/6/2
Name one! Give me a reference! There’s nothing forbidding that in Maths (though we would more usually write it as 12/(6x2)). Again, all you have to do is obey left to right
Funny enough all the examples that N.J. Lennes list in his letter use
…Terms. Same as all textbooks do now
and thus his rule could be replaced by
…Terms, the already-existing rule that he apparently didn’t know about (he mentions them, and products, but manages to completely miss what that actually means)
“Something, something, distributive property, something ….”
Something, something, Distributive Law (yes, some people use the wrong name, but in talking about the property, not the law, you’re knocking down a strawman)
The distributive property is just a property that applies to some operations
…and The Distributive Law applies to every bracketed term that has a coefficient, in this case it’s 2(1+2)
It has nothing to do with the order of operations
And The Distributive Law has everything to do with order of operations, since solving Brackets is literally the first step!
I’ve no idea where this idea comes from
Maybe you should’ve asked someone. Hint: textbooks/teachers
because there aren’t any primary sources (at least I wasn’t able to find any)
Here it is again, textbook references, proofs, memes, the works
should be calculated (distributed) first
Bingo! Distribution isn’t Multiplication
6÷2(3). If we follow the strong juxtaposition convention, we must
…distribute the 2, always
It has nothing to do with the 3 being inside parentheses
It has everything to do with there being a coefficient to the brackets, the 2
Those parentheses are only there, because
…it’s a factorised term, and the opposite of factorising is The Distributive Law
the parentheses do not force the multiplication
No, it forces distribution of the coefficient. a(b+c)=(ab+ac)
The parentheses are only there to make it clear that
…it is a factorised term subject to The Distributive Law
we are implicitly multiplying two separate numbers.
They’re NOT 2 separate numbers. It’s a single, factorised term, in the same way that 2a is a single term, and in this case a is equal to (1+2)!
With the context that the engineer is trying to calculate the radius of a circle it’s clear that they meant r=C/(2π)
Because 2π is a single term, by definition (it’s the product of a multiplication), as is r itself, so that should actually be written r=(C/2π)
When symbols for quantities are combined in a product of two or more quantities, this combination is indicated in one of the following ways: ab,a b,a⋅b,a×b
Incorrect. Only the first one is a term/product (not separated by any operators) - the last 2 are multiplications, and the 2nd one is literally meaningless. Space isn’t defined as meaning anything in Maths
Division of one quantity by another is indicated in one of the following ways:
The first is a fraction
The second is a division
The third is also a fraction
The last is a multiplication by a fraction
Creates ambiguity since space isn’t defined to mean anything in Maths. Looks like a typo - was there meant to be a multiply where the space is? Or was there not meant to be a space??
By definition ab-1=a1b-1=(a/b)
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?
only refers to implicit multiplication involving special expressions(?) like pi, e, sqrt or log, and nothing about “regular” implicit multiplication like 2(1+3)
That was a very astute observation you made there! The fact is, for the very reason you stated, there is in fact no such thing as “implicit multiplication” - it is a term which has been made up by people who have forgotten Terms (the first thing you mentioned) and The Distributive Law (the second thing you mentioned). As you’ve noted., these are 2 different rules, and lumping them together as one brings exactly the disastrous results you might expect from lumping different 2 rules together as one…
See here for explanation of all the various rules, including textbook references and proofs.
