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 :)

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 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.

        • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 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.

          • 💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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.

            • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 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.

              • 💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                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.

                • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Notation isn’t semantics. Mathematical proofs are working with the semantics. Nobody doubts that those are unambiguous. But notation can be ambiguous. In this case it is: weak juxtaposition vs strong juxtaposition. Read the damn article.

                  • Notation isn’t semantics

                    Correct, the definitions and the rules define the semantics.

                    Mathematical proofs are working with

                    …the rules of Maths. In fact, when we are first teaching proofs to students we tell them they have to write next to each step which rule of Maths they have used for that step.

                    Nobody doubts that those are unambiguous

                    Apparently a lot of people do! But yes, unambiguous, and therefore the article is wrong.

                    But notation can be ambiguous

                    Nope. An obelus means divide, and “strong juxtaposition” means it’s a Term, and needs The Distributive Law applied if it has brackets.

                    In this case it is: weak juxtaposition vs strong juxtaposition

                    There is no such thing as weak juxtaposition. That is another reason that the article is wrong. If there is any juxtaposition then it is strong, as per the rules of Maths. You’re just giving me even more ammunition at this point.

                    Read the damn article

                    You just gave me yet another reason it’s wrong - it talks about “weak juxtaposition”. Even less likely to ever read it now - it’s just full of things which are wrong.

                    How about read my damn thread which contains all the definitions and proofs needed to prove that this article is wrong? You’re trying to defend the article… by giving me even more things that are wrong about it. 😂