this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
857 points (96.4% liked)

Memes

45729 readers
647 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
857
6÷2(1+2) (programming.dev)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by wischi@programming.dev to c/memes@lemmy.ml
 

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 :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tiago@beehaw.org 4 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Damn ragebait posts, it's always the same recycled operation. They could at least spice it up, like the discussion about absolute value. What's |a|b|c|?

What I gather from this, is that Geogebra is superior for not allowing ambiguous notation to be parsed 👌

[–] wischi@programming.dev 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Your example with the absolute values is actually linked in the "Even more ambiguous math notations" section.

Geogebra has indeed found a good solution but it only works if you input field supports fractions and a lot of calculators (even CAS like WolframAlpha) don't support that.

[–] tiago@beehaw.org 4 points 11 months ago

Yeah! That's why I mentioned it, it was a fresh ambiguous notation problem that I've never encountered before. Discussions of "is it 1 or 9" get tiring quickly.

At least WA and others tell you how they interpret the input, instead of being a black box (until you get to the manuals). Even though it is obvious in hindsight, I didn't get why two calculators would yield different results; thanks!

Nice write-up.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)