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. 🙃
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
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.
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! 😂
Nope it’s bedmas since everything is brackets
I would do the mighty parentheses first, and then the 2 that dares to touch the mighty parentheses, finally getting to the run-of-the-mill division. Hence the answer is One.
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.
What the heck are you all fighting about? It’s BODMAS.
I’d would be great if you find the time to read the post and let me know afterwards what you think. It actually looks trivial as a problem but the situation really isn’t, that’s why the article is so long.
It actually looks trivial as a problem
Because it actually is.
that’s why the article is so long
The article was really long because there were so many stawmen in it. Had you checked a Maths textbook or asked a Maths teacher it could’ve been really short, but you never did either.
I was being facetious. I will try to find the time to read the post, but I know already that the problem isn’t trivial. It involves, above all else, human comprehension, which is a very iffy thing, to say the least.
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
Markdown fucked your comment. Use escape symbols.
Escape symbols?
Never mind, here’s another better way to do this:
6⁄2(1+2) ⇒ 6⁄2*3 ⇒ 6⁄6 ⇒ 1
Works on the web page, but looks weird on some mobile app. Markdown is a fucking mess. Some implementation has MathJax support, some have special syntaxes.
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.
@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).
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
FACT CHECK 1/5
If you are sure the answer is one… you are wrong
No, you are. You’ve ignored multiple rules of Maths, as we’ll see…
it’s (intentionally!) written in an ambiguous way
Except it’s not ambiguous at all
There are quite a few people who are certain(!) that their result is the only correct answer
…and an entire subset of those people are high school Maths teachers!
What kind of evidence/information would it take to convince you, that you are wrong
A change to the rules of Maths that’s not in any textbooks yet, and somehow no teachers have been told about it yet either
If there is nothing that would change your mind, then I’m sorry I can’t do anything for you.
I can do something for you though - fact-check your blog
things that contradict your current beliefs.
There’s no “belief” when it comes to rules of Maths - they are facts (some by definition, some by proof)
How can math be ambiguous?
#MathsIsNeverAmbiguous
operator priority with “implied multiplication by juxtaposition”
There’s no such thing as “implicit multiplication”. You won’t find that term used anywhere in any Maths textbook. People who use that term are usually referring to Terms, The Distributive Law, or most commonly both! #DontForgetDistribution
This is a valid notation for a multiplication
Nope. It’s a valid notation for a factorised Term. e.g. 2a+2b=2(a+b). And the reverse process to factorising is The Distributive Law. i.e. 2(a+b)=(2a+2b).
but the order of operations it’s not well defined with respect to regular explicit multiplication
The only type of multiplication there is is explicit. Neither Terms nor The Distributive Law is classed as “multiplication”
There is no single clear norm or convention
There is a single, standard, order of operations rules
Also, see my thread about people who say there is no evidence/proof/convention - it almost always ends up there actually is, but they didn’t look (or didn’t want you to look)
The reason why so many people disagree is that
…they have forgotten about Terms and/or The Distributive Law, and are trying to treat a Term as though it’s a “multiplication”, and it’s not. More soon
conflicting conventions about the order of operations for implied multiplication
Let me paraphrase - people disagree about made-up rule
Weak juxtaposition
There’s no such thing - there’s either juxtaposition or not, and if there is it’s either Terms or The Distributive Law
construct “viral math problems” by writing a single-line expression (without a fraction) with a division first and a
…factorised term after that
Note how none of them use a regular multiplication sign, but implicit multiplication to trigger the ambiguity.
There’s no ambiguity…
multiplication sign - multiplication
brackets with no multiplication sign (i.e. a coefficient) - The Distributive Law
no multiplication sign and no brackets - Terms (also called products by some. e.g. Lennes)
If it’s a school test, ask you teacher
Why didn’t you ask a teacher before writing your blog? Maths tests are only ever ambiguous if there’s been a typo. If there’s no typo’s then there’s a right answer and wrong answers. If you think the question is ambiguous then you’ve not studied enough
maybe they can write it as a fraction to make it clear what they meant
This question already is clear. It’s division, NOT a fraction. They are NOT the same thing! Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols. 1÷2 is 2 terms, ½ is 1 term
BTW here is what happened when someone asked a German Maths teacher
you should probably stick to the weak juxtaposition convention
You should literally NEVER use “weak juxtaposition” - it contravenes the rules of Maths (Terms and The Distributive Law)
strong juxtaposition is pretty common in academic circles
…and high school, where it’s first taught
(6/2)(1+2)=9
If that was what was meant then that’s what would’ve been written - the 6 and 2 have been joined together to make a single term, and elevated to the precedence of Brackets rather than Division
written in an ambiguous way without telling you what they meant or which convention to follow
You should know, without being told, to follow the rules of Maths when solving it. Voila! No ambiguity
to stir up drama
It stirs up drama because many adults have forgotten the rules of Maths (you’ll find students get this right, because they still remember)
Calculators are actually one of the reasons why this problem even exists in the first place
No, you just put the cart before the horse - the problem existing in the first place (programmers not brushing up on their Maths first) is why some calculators do it wrong
“line-based” text, it led to the development of various in-line notations
Yes, we use / to mean divide with computers (since there is no ÷ on the keyboard), which you therefore need to put into brackets if it’s a fraction (since there’s no fraction bar on the keyboard either)
With most in-line notations there are some situations with conflicting conventions
Nope. See previous comment.
different manufacturers use different conventions
Because programmers didn’t check their Maths first, some calculators give wrong answers
More often than not even the same manufacturer uses different conventions
According to this video mostly not these days (based on her comments, there’s only Texas Instruments which isn’t obeying both Terms and The Distributive Law, which she refers to as “PEJMDAS” - she didn’t have a manual for the HP calcs). i.e. some manufacturers who were doing it wrong have switched back to doing it correctly
P.S. she makes the same mistake as you, and suggests showing her video to teachers instead of just asking a teacher in the first place herself (she’s suggesting to add something to teaching which we already do teach. i.e. ab=(axb)).
none of those two calculators is “wrong”
ANY calculator which doesn’t obey all the rules of Maths is wrong!
Bugs are – by definition – unintended behaviour. That is not the case here
So a calculator, which has a specific purpose of solving Maths expressions, giving a wrong answer to a Maths expression isn’t “unintended behaviour”? Do go on
deleted by creator
Having read your article, I contend it should be:
P(arentheses)
E(xponents)
M(ultiplication)D(ivision)
A(ddition)S(ubtraction)
and strong juxtaposition should be thrown out the window.Why? Well, to be clear, I would prefer one of them die so we can get past this argument that pops up every few years so weak or strong doesn’t matter much to me, and I think weak juxtaposition is more easily taught and more easily supported by PEMDAS. I’m not saying it receives direct support, but rather the lack of instruction has us fall back on what we know as an overarching rule (multiplication and division are equal). Strong juxtaposition has an additional ruling to PEMDAS that specifies this specific case, whereas weak juxtaposition doesn’t need an additional ruling (and I would argue anyone who says otherwise isn’t logically extrapolating from the PEMDAS ruleset). I don’t think the sides are as equal as people pose.
To note, yes, PEMDAS is a teaching tool and yes there are obviously other ways of thinking of math. But do those matter? The mathematical system we currently use will work for any usecase it does currently regardless of the juxtaposition we pick, brackets/parentheses (as well as better ordering of operations when writing them down) can pick up any slack. Weak juxtaposition provides better benefits because it has less rules (and is thusly simpler).
But again, I really don’t care. Just let one die. Kill it, if you have to.
Division comes before Multiplication, doesn’t it? I know BODMAS.
That makes no sense. Division is just multiplication by an inverse. There’s no reason for one to come before another.
This actually explains alot. Murica is Pemdas but Canadian used Bodmas so multiply is first in America.
As far as I understand it, they’re given equal weight in the order of operations, it’s just whichever you hit first left to right.
Yeah 100% was not taught that. Follow the pemdas or fail the test. Division is after Multiply in pemdas.
I put the equation into excel and get 9 which only makes sense in bodmas.
Ah, but if you use the rules BODMSA (or PEDMSA) then you can follow the letter order strictly, ignoring the equal precedence left-to-right rule, and you still get the correct answer. Therefore clearly we should start teaching BODMSA in primary schools. Or perhaps BFEDMSA. (Brackets, named Functions, Exponentiation, Division, Multiplication, Subtraction, Addition). I’m sure that would remove all confusion and stop all arguments. … Or perhaps we need another letter to clarify whether implicit multiplication with a coefficient and no symbol is different to explicit multiplication… BFEIDMSA or BFEDIMSA. Shall we vote on it?
Don’t need any extra letters - just need people to remember the rules around expanding brackets in the first place.
Obviously more letters would make the mnemonic worse, not better. I was making a joke.
As for the brackets ‘the rules around expanding brackets’ are only meaningful in the assumed context of our order of operations. For example, if we instead all agreed that addition should be before multiplication, then a×(b+c) would “expand” to a×b+c, because the addition is before multiplication anyway and the brackets do nothing.
I was making a joke.
Fair enough, but my point still stands.
if we instead all agreed that addition should be before multiplication
…then you would STILL have to do multiplication first. You can’t change Maths by simply agreeing to change it - that’s like saying if we all agree that the Earth is flat then the Earth is flat. Similarly we can’t agree that 1+1=3 now. Maths is used to model the real world - you can’t “agree” to change physics. You can’t add 1 thing to 1 other thing and have 3 things now, no matter how much you might want to “agree” that there is 3, there’s only 2 things. Multiplying is a binary operation, and addition is unary, and you have to do binary operators before unary operators - that is a fact that no amount of “agreeing” can change. 2x3 is actually a contracted form of 2+2+2, which is why it has to be done before addition - you’re in fact exposing the hidden additions before you do the additions.
the brackets do nothing
The brackets, by definition, say what to do first. Regardless of any other order of operations rules, you always do brackets first - that is in fact their sole job. They indicate any exceptions to the rules that would apply otherwise. They perform no other function. If you’re going to no longer do brackets first then you would simply not use them at all anymore. And in fact we don’t - when there are redundant brackets, like in (2)(1+2), we simply leave them out, leaving 2(1+2).
I think anything after (whichever grade your country introduces fractions in) should exclusively use fractions or multiplication with fractions to express division in order to disambiguate. A division symbol should never be used after fractions are introduced.
This way, it doesn’t really matter which juxtaposition you prefer, because it will never be ambiguous.
Anything before (whichever grade introduces fractions) should simply overuse brackets.
This comment was written in a couple of seconds, so if I missed something obvious, feel free to obliterate me.
A division symbol should never be used after fractions are introduced.
But a fraction is a single term, 2 numbers separated by a division is 2 terms. Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols.
I think weak juxtaposition is more easily taught
Except it breaks the rules which already are taught.
the PEMDAS ruleset
But they’re not rules - it’s a mnemonic to help you remember the actual order of operations rules.
Just let one die. Kill it, if you have to
Juxtaposition - in either case - isn’t a rule to begin with (the 2 appropriate rules here are The Distributive Law and Terms), yet it refuses to die because of incorrect posts like this one (which fails to quote any Maths textbooks at all, which is because it’s not in any textbooks, which is because it’s wrong).
Except it breaks the rules which already are taught.
It isn’t, because the ‘currently taught rules’ are on a case-by-case basis and each teacher defines this area themselves. Strong juxtaposition isn’t already taught, and neither is weak juxtaposition. That’s the whole point of the argument.
But they’re not rules - it’s a mnemonic to help you remember the actual order of operations rules.
See this part of my comment: “To note, yes, PEMDAS is a teaching tool and yes there are obviously other ways of thinking of math. But do those matter? The mathematical system we currently use will work for any usecase it does currently regardless of the juxtaposition we pick, brackets/parentheses (as well as better ordering of operations when writing them down) can pick up any slack. Weak juxtaposition provides better benefits because it has less rules (and is thusly simpler).”
Juxtaposition - in either case - isn’t a rule to begin with (the 2 appropriate rules here are The Distributive Law and Terms), yet it refuses to die because of incorrect posts like this one (which fails to quote any Maths textbooks at all, which is because it’s not in any textbooks, which is because it’s wrong).
You’re claiming the post is wrong and saying it doesn’t have any textbook citation (which is erroneous in and of itself because textbooks are not the only valid source) but you yourself don’t put down a citation for your own claim so… citation needed.
In addition, this issue isn’t a mathematical one, but a grammatical one. It’s about how we write math, not how math is (and thus the rules you’re referring to such as the Distributive Law don’t apply, as they are mathematical rules and remain constant regardless of how we write math).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
It’s not ambiguous, it’s just that correctly parsing the expression requires more precise application of the order of operations than is typical. It’s unclear, sure. Implicit multiplication having higher precedence is intuitive, sure, but not part of the standard as-written order of operations.
I’d really like to know if and how your view on that matter would change once you read the full post. I know it’s very long and a lot of people won’t read it because they “already know” the answer but I’m pretty sure it would shift your perception at least a bit if you find the time to read it.
My opinion hasn’t changed. The standard order of operations is as well defined as a notational convention can be. It’s not necessarily followed strictly in practice, but it’s easier to view such examples as normal deviation from the rules instead of an implicit disagreement about the rules themselves. For example, I know how to “properly” capitalize my sentences too, and I intentionally do it “wrong” all the time. To an outsider claiming my capitalization is incorrect, I don’t say “I am using a different standard,” I just say “Yes, I know, I don’t care.” This is simpler because it accepts the common knowledge of the “normal” rules and communicates a specific intent to deviate. The alternative is to try to invent a new set of ad hoc rules that justify my side, and explain why these rules are equally valid to the ones we both know and understand.
The difference is that there are two sets of rules already in use by large groups of people, so which do you consider correct?
There aren’t.
They weren’t asking you if there are two sets of rules, we’re in a thread that’s basically all qbout the Weak vs. Strong juxtaposition debate, they asked you which you consider correct.
Giving the answer to a question they didn’t ask to avoid the one they did is immature.
Ah yes, simply “answer the question with an incorrect premise instead of refuting the premise.” When did you stop beating your wife?
That’s not what they asked me. I have no problem answering questions that are asked in good faith.
I can’t have stopped because I never started, because I’m not even married… See, even I can answer your bad faith question better than you answered the one @onion asked you.
But I will give it to you that my comment should’ve stipulated avoiding reasonable questions.
The difference is that there are two sets of rules already in use by large groups of people, so which do you consider correct?
However I still think you need your eyes checked, as the end of this comment by @onion is very clearly a question asking you WHICH ruleset you consider correct.
Unless you’re refusing the notion of multiplication by juxtaposition entirely, then you must be on one side of this or the other.
The standard order of operations is as well defined as a notational convention can be.
If it was so well defined, then how did two different sets of rules regarding juxtaposition even come to be?
A well-defined order of operations shouldn’t have a hole that big.Also, @wischi asking you to give the answer as defined by your convention isn’t condescending, they’re asking you to put your money where your mouth is…
Your response certainly felt condescending though, especially since your “explanation” was essentially that anyone who disagrees with the convention you follow is wrong and should feel stupid, and that you needn’t even consider it.
If it was so well defined, then how did two different sets of rules regarding juxtaposition even come to be?
They didn’t - neither of them is a rule of Maths.
There aren’t two different sets of rules. There’s the simple model that’s commonly understood and taught to kids, and there’s the real world where you have context and the dynamics of a conversation and years of experience with communication. One is well defined, the other isn’t.
Them asking me to solve the arithmetic problem is condescending, yes.
My response didn’t say “anyone who disagrees with the convention is stupid.” Here’s condescension for you: please don’t make your reading level my problem. What I said was, there’s an unambiguous way to parse the expression according to the commonly understood order of operations, but it is atypical to pay that much attention to the order of operations in practice. If you think that’s a value judgment, that’s on you-- I was very clear in my example about capitalization, “strictly adhering to the conventional order of operations” is something reasonable people often just don’t care about.
There aren’t two different sets of rules. There’s the simple model that’s commonly understood and taught to kids, and there’s the real world where you have context and the dynamics of a conversation and years of experience with communication. One is well defined, the other isn’t.
And that simple model, well-defined model didn’t properly account for juxtaposition, which is how different fields have ended up with two different ways of interpreting it, i.e. strong vs. weak juxtaposition.
In the real world you simply wouldn’t write any equation out in such a way as to allow misinterpretation like this, but that’s ignoring the elephant in the room…
Which is that the reason viral problems like this still come about and why @wischi went through the effort of writing a rather detailed blog on this is because the order of operations most people are taught doesn’t cover juxtaposition.
Them asking me to solve the arithmetic problem is condescending, yes.
Considering your degree specialisation is in solving arithmetic problems, I don’t see the issue with them asking you to put your money where your mouth is and spit out a number if it’s so easy.
My response didn’t say “anyone who disagrees with the convention is stupid.” Here’s condescension for you: please don’t make your reading level my problem.
Ironic that you tell me to check my reading comprehension right after you misquote me, but nonetheless that is the impression your responses have given off - and you haven’t done anything so far to dispel that impression.
What I said was, there’s an unambiguous way to parse the expression according to the commonly understood order of operations, but it is atypical to pay that much attention to the order of operations in practice.
Yes, and the question everyone is asking you is what is that unambiguous way? Which side of weak or strong juxtaposition do you come out on?
If you think that’s a value judgment, that’s on you-- I was very clear in my example about capitalization, “strictly adhering to the conventional order of operations” is something reasonable people often just don’t care about.
The value judgement was actually more to do with your choice of example, and how you applied that example to this debate. It gave me the distinct impression that you view this debate as not worth having, as anybody who does juxtaposition differently from you is wrong out the gate - and again, your further responses only reinforce my impression of you.
why @wischi went through the effort of writing a rather detailed blog on this is because the order of operations most people are taught doesn’t cover juxtaposition.
The order of operations rules do cover it. Did you not notice that the OP never referenced a single Maths textbook? Because, had that been done, the whole house of cards would’ve fallen down. See my Fact Check posts doing exactly that.
And that simple model, well-defined model didn’t properly account for juxtaposition, which is how different fields have ended up with two different ways of interpreting it, i.e. strong vs. weak juxtaposition.
No, that’s just not what happened. “Strong juxtaposition,” while well-defined, is a post-hoc rationalization. Meaning in particular that people who believe that this expression is best interpreted with “strong juxtaposition” don’t really believe in “strong juxtaposition” as a rule. What they really believe is that communication is subtle and context dependent, and the traditional order of operations is not comprehensive enough to describe how people really communicate. And that’s correct.
Considering your degree specialisation is in solving arithmetic problems
My degree specialization is in algebraic topology.
I don’t see the issue with them asking you to put your money where your mouth is and spit out a number if it’s so easy
The issue is that this question disregards and undermines my point and asks me to pick a side, arbitrarily, that (as I’ve already explained) I don’t actually believe in.
Ironic that you tell me to check my reading comprehension right after you misquote me, but nonetheless that is the impression your responses have given off - and you haven’t done anything so far to dispel that impression.
I didn’t misread, you’re in denial.
Yes, and the question everyone is asking you is what is that unambiguous way? Which side of weak or strong juxtaposition do you come out on?
Hopefully by this point in the comment you understand that I don’t believe the question makes sense.
The value judgement was actually more to do with your choice of example, and how you applied that example to this debate. It gave me the distinct impression that you view this debate as not worth having, as anybody who does juxtaposition differently from you is wrong out the gate - and again, your further responses only reinforce my impression of you.
Again, that’s your fault-- you’ve clearly misinterpreted what I said. If I didn’t think this conversation was worth having I wouldn’t be responding to you.
No, that’s just not what happened. “Strong juxtaposition,” while well-defined, is a post-hoc rationalization. Meaning in particular that people who believe that this expression is best interpreted with “strong juxtaposition” don’t really believe in “strong juxtaposition” as a rule. What they really believe is that communication is subtle and context dependent, and the traditional order of operations is not comprehensive enough to describe how people really communicate. And that’s correct.
I think you’re putting the cart before the horse here - there is definitely a communication issue around juxtaposition, but you’re acting as though strong juxtaposition is some kind of social commentary on the standard order of operations rather than the reality that it is an interpretation that arose due to ambiguity, just as weak juxtaposition did.
If it were people just trying to make a point, then why would it be so widely used and most scientific calculators are designed to use it, or allow its use. This debate exists because so many people ascribe to one or the other without thinking.
My degree specialization is in algebraic topology.
One - that does sound kind of cool
Two - You still have a mathematics degree do you not? You said this was an easy “unambiguous” problem to solve, so I don’t see how you’re prohibited from solving it…
The issue is that this question disregards and undermines my point and asks me to pick a side, arbitrarily, that (as I’ve already explained) I don’t actually believe in.
God saying stuff like that, you sound just like an enlightened centrist…
Anyways, even if you don’t want to comment on the strong vs. weak juxtaposition debate, unless you simply intend on never solving any equation with implicit multiplication by juxtaposition ever again, then you must have a way of interpreting it.
That is what you’re being asked to disclose, since you seem to be very certain that there is a correct way of resolving this. You’ve brought the question upon yourself.
If you don’t want to take a side, simply saying the rules are ambiguous and technically both positions are correct depending on what field you’re in is also a valid position…
But denying the problem all together is not productive.
I didn’t misread, you’re in denial.
In the first place I don’t think you’ve proven me wrong. As far as I can tell your comments still boil down to that you think the whole debate is wrong, and that engaging in the debate is dumb.
But I can say for certain that you either misread or deliberately misconstrued at least part of my reply, because when responding to me you removed the “you follow” from it, which changes the interpretation.
If you think that wasn’t what I said, feel free to go back and look.
Hopefully by this point in the comment you understand that I don’t believe the question makes sense.
I understand you don’t believe the question makes sense, you’ve said that enough times…
But I’ll just refer you to my earlier comment - unless you intend on never solving any equation involving implicit multiplication ever again, then you must ascribe to one way or the other of resolving it.
Again, that’s your fault-- you’ve clearly misinterpreted what I said.
Then tell me how I’ve misinterpreted what you said, because I stick by what I said as far as your example goes.
Your choice of example is not only a much more clear cut issue, being that most kids are taught by primary school (or the US equivalent) how and where to capitalise their letters, and to me it also demonstrates that you’ve not understood that the whole reason this debate is a thing is directly because there’s no “wrong way” of doing this.
If I didn’t think this conversation was worth having I wouldn’t be responding to you.
I understand you see this conversation with me as worth having, but I suspect this is more to do with wanting to resolve this conversation in your favour than it is to do with the underlying debate.
What is the correct answer according to the convention you follow?
I have a masters in math, please do not condescend. I’m fully aware of both interpretations and your overall point and I’ve explained my response.
I still don’t see a number ;-) but you can take a look at the meme to see other people with math degrees shouting at each other.
Sorry your article wasn’t as interesting as you hoped.
