• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 28th, 2023

help-circle











  • atomicorange@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml6÷2(1+2)
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    You look like a real idiot here. I really suggest you actually read the article instead of “scanning” it. You clearly don’t even understand the term “implicit multiplication” if you’re claiming it’s made up. Implicit multiplication is not the controversial part of this equation, which you would know if you read the article and understood what people in this thread are even talking about. Stop spamming your shitty blog and just. Read. The. Article.





  • atomicorange@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml6÷2(1+2)
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m a scientist and I’ve only ever encountered strong juxtaposition in quick scribbles where everyone knows the equation already. Normally we’re very careful to use fraction notation (or parentheses) when there’s any possibility of ambiguity. I read the equation and was shocked that anyone would get an answer other than 9.


  • atomicorange@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml6÷2(1+2)
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    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.