https://zeta.one/viral-math/ [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 :)
The answer realistically is determined by where you place implicit multiplication (or "multiplication by juxtaposition") in the order of operations.
Some place it above explicit multiplication and division, meaning it gets done before the division giving you an answer of 1
But if you place it as equal to it's explicit counterparts, then you'd sweep left to right giving you an answer of 9
Since those are both valid interpretations of the order of operations dependent on what field you're in, you're always going to end up with disagreements on questions like these...
But in reality nobody would write an equation like this, and even if they did, there would usually be some kind of context (I.e. units) to guide you as to what the answer should be.
Edit: Just skimmed that article, and it looks like I did remember the last explanation I heard about these correctly. Yay me!
implicit multiplication
There’s no such thing as “implicit multiplication”
Some place it above explicit multiplication and division,
Which is correct, seeing as how we’re solving brackets, and brackets always come first.
But if you place it as equal to it’s explicit counterparts, then you’d sweep left to right giving you an answer of 9
Which is wrong.
Since those are both valid interpretations of the order of operations
No, they’re not. Treating brackets as, you know, brackets, is the only valid interpretation. “Multiplication” refers literally to multiplication signs, of which there are none in this problem.
But in reality nobody would write an equation like this
Yes they would. a(b+c) is the standard way to write a factorised term.
Attached: 1 image 1/7 This week for #MathsMonday we are going to debunk the "implicit multiplication" (IM) claims (and also look at the mnemonics). I say claims, because there is actually no such thing as IM in #Mathematics. I find invariably the people who say there is have forgotten The Distributive Law (TDL) and/or Terms, but most often both! As we have already seen, these are both rules of #Maths, taught in many #Math textbooks, so that right away debunks any claims that "there is no convention in Maths"...
wischi
Th4tGuyII
💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱