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 :)

  • It isn’t, because the ‘currently taught rules’ are on a case-by-case basis and each teacher defines this area themselves

    Nope. Teachers can decide how they teach. They cannot decide what they teach. The have to teach whatever is in the curriculum for their region.

    Strong juxtaposition isn’t already taught, and neither is weak juxtaposition

    That’s because neither of those is a rule of Maths. The Distributive Law and Terms are, and they are already taught (they are both forms of what you call “strong juxtaposition”, but note that they are 2 different rules, so you can’t cover them both with a single rule like “strong juxtaposition”. That’s where the people who say “implicit multiplication” are going astray - trying to cover 2 rules with one).

    See this part of my comment… Weak juxtaposition provides better benefits because it has less rules (and is thusly simpler)

    Yep, saw it, and weak juxtaposition would break the existing rules of Maths, such as The Distributive Law and Terms. (Re)learn the existing rules, that is the point of the argument.

    citation needed

    Well that part’s easy - I guess you missed the other links I posted. Order of operations thread index Text book references, proofs, the works.

    this issue isn’t a mathematical one, but a grammatical one

    Maths isn’t a language. It’s a group of notation and rules. It has syntax, not grammar. The equation in question has used all the correct notation, and so when solving it you have to follow all the relevant rules.

    • The_Vampire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Nope. Teachers can decide how they teach. They cannot decide what they teach. The have to teach whatever is in the curriculum for their region.

      Yes, teachers have certain things they need to teach. That doesn’t prohibit them from teaching additional material.

      That’s because neither of those is a rule of Maths. The Distributive Law and Terms are, and they are already taught (they are both forms of what you call “strong juxtaposition”, but note that they are 2 different rules, so you can’t cover them both with a single rule like “strong juxtaposition”. That’s where the people who say “implicit multiplication” are going astray - trying to cover 2 rules with one).

      Yep, saw it, and weak juxtaposition would break the existing rules of Maths, such as The Distributive Law and Terms. (Re)learn the existing rules, that is the point of the argument.

      Well that part’s easy - I guess you missed the other links I posted. Order of operations thread index Text book references, proofs, the works.

      You argue about sources and then cite yourself as a source with a single reference that isn’t you buried in the thread on the Distributive Law? That single reference doesn’t even really touch the topic. Your only evidence in the entire thread relevant to the discussion is self-sourced. Citation still needed.

      Maths isn’t a language. It’s a group of notation and rules. It has syntax, not grammar. The equation in question has used all the correct notation, and so when solving it you have to follow all the relevant rules.

      You can argue semantics all you like. I would put forth that since you want sources so much, according to Merriam-Webster, grammar’s definitions include “the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique”, of which I think the syntax of mathematics qualifies, as it is a set of rules and mathematics is a science.

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

        That doesn’t prohibit them from teaching additional material

        Correct, but it can’t be something which would contradict what they do have to teach, which is what “weak juxtaposition” would do.

        a single reference

        I see you didn’t read the whole thread then. Keep going if you want more. Literally every Year 7-8 Maths textbook says the same thing. I’ve quoted multiple textbooks (and haven’t even covered all the ones I own).

        mathematics is a science

        Actually you’ll find that assertion is hotly debated.

        • The_Vampire@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Correct, but it can’t be something which would contradict what they do have to teach, which is what “weak juxtaposition” would do.

          Citation needed.

          I see you didn’t read the whole thread then. Keep going if you want more. Literally every Year 7-8 Maths textbook says the same thing. I’ve quoted multiple textbooks (and haven’t even covered all the ones I own).

          If I have to search your ‘source’ for the actual source you’re trying to reference, it’s a very poor source. This is the thread I searched. Your comments only reference ‘math textbooks’, not anything specific, outside of this link which you reference twice in separate comments but again, it’s not evidence for your side, or against it, or even relevant. It gets real close to almost talking about what we want, but it never gets there.

          But fine, you reference ‘multiple textbooks’ so after a bit of searching I find the only other reference you’ve made. In the very same comment you yourself state “he says that Stokes PROPOSED that /b+c be interpreted as /(b+c). He says nothing further about it, however it’s certainly not the way we interpret it now”, which is kind of what we want. We’re talking about x/y(b+c) and whether that should be x/(yb+yc) or x/y * 1/(b+c). However, there’s just one little issue. Your last part of that statement is entirely self-supported, meaning you have an uncited refutation of the side you’re arguing against, which funnily enough you did cite.

          Now, maybe that latter textbook citation I found has some supporting evidence for yourself somewhere, but an additional point is that when providing evidence and a source to support your argument you should probably make it easy to find the evidence you speak of. I’m certainly not going to spend a great amount of effort trying to disprove myself over an anonymous internet argument, and I believe I’ve already done my due diligence.

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

            Citation needed.

            So you think it’s ok to teach contradictory stuff to them in Maths? 🤣 Ok sure, fine, go ahead and find me a Maths textbook which has “weak juxtaposition” in it. I’ll wait.

            Your comments only reference ‘math textbooks’, not anything specific

            So you’re telling me you can’t see the Maths textbook screenshots/photo’s?

            outside of this link which you reference twice in separate comments but again, it’s not evidence for your side, or against it, or even relevant

            Lennes was complaining that literally no textbooks he mentioned were following “weak juxtaposition”, and you think that’s not relevant to establishing that no textbooks used “weak juxtaposition” 100 years ago?

            We’re talking about x/y(b+c) and whether that should be x/(yb+yc) or x/y * 1/(b+c).

            It’s in literally the first textbook screenshot, which if I’m understanding you right you can’t see? (see screenshot of the screenshot above)

            you have an uncited refutation of the side you’re arguing against, which funnily enough you did cite.

            Ah, no. Lennes was complaining about textbooks who were obeying Terms/The Distributive Law. His own letter shows us that they all (the ones he mentioned) were doing the same thing then that we do now. Plus my first (and later) screenshot(s).

            Also it’s in Cajori, but I didn’t find it until later. I don’t remember what page it was, but it’s in Cajori and you have the reference for it there already.

            you should probably make it easy to find the evidence you speak of

            Well I’m not sure how you didn’t see all the screenshots. They’re hard to miss on my computer!

            • The_Vampire@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              So you think it’s ok to teach contradictory stuff to them in Maths? 🤣 Ok sure, fine, go ahead and find me a Maths textbook which has “weak juxtaposition” in it. I’ll wait.

              You haven’t provided a textbook that has strong juxtaposition.

              So you’re telling me you can’t see the Maths textbook screenshots/photo’s?

              That’s not a source, that’s a screenshot. You can’t look up the screenshot, you can’t identify authors, you can’t check for bias. At best I can search the title of the file you’re in that you also happened to screenshot and hope that I find the right text. The fact that you think this is somehow sufficient makes me question your claims of an academic background, but that’s neither here nor there. What does matter is that I shouldn’t have to go treasure hunting for your sources.

              And, to blatantly examine the photo, this specific text appears to be signifying brackets as their own syntactic item with differing rules. However, I want to note that the whole issue is that people don’t agree so you will find cases on both sides, textbook or no.

              Lennes was complaining that literally no textbooks he mentioned were following “weak juxtaposition”, and you think that’s not relevant to establishing that no textbooks used “weak juxtaposition” 100 years ago?

              You are welcome to cite the specific wording he uses to state this. As far as I can tell, at least in the excerpt linked, there is no such complaint.

              • You haven’t provided a textbook that has strong juxtaposition

                I told you, in my thread - multiple ones. You haven’t provided any textbooks at all that have “weak juxtaposition”. i.e. you keep asking me for more evidence whilst never producing any of your own.

                At best I can search the title of the file you’re in that you also happened to screenshot and hope that I find the right text

                I didn’t “just happen” to include the name of the textbook and page number - that was quite deliberate. Not sure why you don’t want to believe a screenshot, especially since you can’t quote any that have “weak juxtaposition” in the first place.

                BTW I just tried Googling it and it was the first hit. You’re welcome.

                What does matter is that I shouldn’t have to go treasure hunting for your sources.

                You don’t - the screenshots of the relevant pages are right there. You’re the one choosing not to believe what is there in black and white, in multiple textbooks.

                with differing rules

                Yeah, I wrote about inconsistency in textbooks here (also includes another textbook saying you have to expand brackets first), but also elsewhere in the thread is an example where they have been consistent throughout. Regardless of when they remove brackets, in every single case they multiply the coefficient over what’s inside the brackets as the first step (as per BEDMAS, and as per the screenshot in question which literally says you must do it before you remove brackets).

                people don’t agree

                People who aren’t high school Maths teachers (the ones who actually teach this topic). Did you notice that neither The Distributive Law nor Terms are mentioned at any point whatsoever? That’s like saying “I don’t remember what I did at Xmas, so therefore it’s ambiguous whether Xmas ever happened at all, and anyone who says it definitely did is wrong”.

                no such complaint.

                So what do you think he is complaining about?

                • The_Vampire@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I told you, in my thread - multiple ones. You haven’t provided any textbooks at all that have “weak juxtaposition”. i.e. you keep asking me for more evidence whilst never producing any of your own.

                  You seem to have missed the point. I’m holding you to your own standard, as you are the one that used evidence as an excuse for dismissal first without providing evidence for your own position.

                  I didn’t “just happen” to include the name of the textbook and page number - that was quite deliberate. Not sure why you don’t want to believe a screenshot, especially since you can’t quote any that have “weak juxtaposition” in the first place. BTW I just tried Googling it and it was the first hit. You’re welcome.

                  You seem to have missed the point. You’re providing a bad source and expecting the person you’re arguing against to do legwork. I never said I couldn’t find the source. I’m saying I shouldn’t have to go looking.

                  You don’t - the screenshots of the relevant pages are right there. You’re the one choosing not to believe what is there in black and white, in multiple textbooks.

                  You’ve provided a single textbook, first of all. Second of all, the argument is that both sides are valid and accepted depending on who you ask, even amongst educated echelons. The fact there exists textbooks that support strong juxtaposition does nothing to that argument.

                  But you want some evidence, so here’s an article from someone who writes textbooks speaking on the ambiguity. Again, the ambiguity exists and your claim that it doesn’t according to educated professors is unsubstantiated. There are of course professors who support strong juxtaposition, but there are also professors who support weak juxtaposition and professors that merely acknowledge the ambiguity exist. The rules of mathematics you claim are set in stone aren’t relevant (and aren’t as set in stone as you imagine) but that’s not entirely relevant. What is relevant is there is an argument and it’s not just uneducated folk mistaking the ‘truth’.

                  People who aren’t high school Maths teachers (the ones who actually teach this topic). Did you notice that neither The Distributive Law nor Terms are mentioned at any point whatsoever? That’s like saying “I don’t remember what I did at Xmas, so therefore it’s ambiguous whether Xmas ever happened at all, and anyone who says it definitely did is wrong”.

                  You are correct, I suppose a mathematics professor from Harvard (see my previous link for the relevant discussion of the ambiguity) isn’t at the high school level.

                  But wait, there’s more. Here’s another source from another mathematics professor. This one ‘supports’ weak juxtaposition but really mostly just points at the ambiguity. Which again, is what I’m going for, that the ambiguity exists and one side is not immediately justified/‘correct’.

                  So what do you think he is complaining about?

                  That’s a leading question and is completely unhelpful to the discussion. I asked you to point out where exactly, and with what wording, your position is supported in the provided text. Please do that.

                  • without providing evidence for your own position

                    You know full well it’s all in my thread. Where’s yours?

                    I’m saying I shouldn’t have to go looking

                    You didn’t have to go looking - you could’ve just accepted it at face-value like other people do.

                    You’ve provided a single textbook,

                    No, multiple textbooks. If you haven’t seen the others yet then keep reading. On the other hand you haven’t provided any textbooks.

                    the argument is that both sides are valid and accepted

                    But they’re not. The other side is contradicting the rules of Maths. In a Maths test it would be marked as wrong. You can’t go into a Maths test and write “this is ambiguous” as an answer to a question.

                    here’s an article from someone who writes textbooks

                    Not high school textbooks! Talk about appeal to authority.

                    Yep, seen it before. Note that he starts out with “It is not clear what the textbook had intended with the 3y”. How on Earth can he not know what that means? If he just picked up any old high school Maths textbook, or read Cajori, or read Lennes’ letter, or even just asked a high school teacher(!), he would find that every single Maths textbook means exactly the same thing - ab=(axb). Instead he decided to write a long blog saying “I don’t know what this means - it must be ambiguous”.

                    Not only that, but he also didn’t know how to handle x/x/x, which shows he doesn’t remember left associativity either. BTW it’s equal to x/x² (which is equal to 1/x).

                    the ambiguity exists

                    …amongst people who have forgotten the rules of Maths. The Maths itself is never ambiguous (which is the claim many of them are making - that the Maths expression itself is ambiguous. In fact the article under discussion here makes that exact claim - that it’s written in an ambiguous way. No it isn’t! It’s written in the standard mathematical way, as per what is taught from textbooks). It’s like saying “I’ve forgotten the combination to my safe, and I’ve been unable to work it out, therefore the combination must be ambiguous”.

                    You are correct, I suppose a mathematics professor from Harvard (see my previous link for the relevant discussion of the ambiguity) isn’t at the high school level.

                    Thank you. I just commented to someone else last night, who had noticed the same thing, I am so tired of people quoting University people - this topic is NOT TAUGHT at university! It’s taught by high school teachers (I’ve taught this topic many times - I’m tutoring a student in it right now). Paradoxically, the first Youtube I saw to get it correct (in fact still the only one I’ve seen get it correct) was by a gamer! 😂 He took the algebra approach. i.e. rewrite this as 6/2a where a=1+2 (which I’ve also used before too. In fact I did an algebraic proof of it).

                    the ambiguity exists and one side is not immediately justified/‘correct’

                    The side which obeys the rules of Maths is correct and the side which disobeys the rules of Maths is incorrect. That’s why the rules of Maths exist in the first place - only 1 answer can be correct (“ambiguity” people also keep claiming “both answers are correct”. Nope, one is correct and one is wrong).

                    That’s a leading question and is completely unhelpful to the discussion.

                    Twice I said things about it and you said you didn’t believe my interpretation is correct, so I asked you what you think he’s saying. I’m not going to go round in circles with you just disagreeing with everything I say about it - just say what YOU think he says.

    • 💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      P.S. if you DID want to indicate “weak juxtaposition”, then you just put a multiplication symbol, and then yes it would be done as “M” in BEDMAS, because it’s no longer the coefficient of a bracketed term (to be solved as part of “B”), but a separate term.

      6/2(1+2)=6/(2+4)=6/6=1

      6/2x(1+2)=6/2x3=3x3=9