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 :)

    • Kogasa@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The distributive law has nothing to do with brackets.

      The distributive law can be written in PEMDAS as a(b+c) = ab + ac, or PEASMD as ab+c = (ab)+(ac). It has no relation to the notation in which it is expressed, and brackets are purely notational.

      • The distributive law has nothing to do with brackets

        BWAHAHAHA! Ok then, what EXACTLY does it relate to, if not brackets? Note that I’m talking about The Distributive LAW - which is about expanding brackets - not the Distributive PROPERTY.

        a(b+c) = ab + ac

        a(b+c)=(ab+ac) actually - that’s one of the common mistakes that people are making. You can’t remove brackets unless there’s only 1 term left inside, and ab+ac is 2 terms.

        ab+c = (ab)+(ac)

        No, never. ab+c is 2 terms with no further simplification possible. From there all that’s left is addition (once you know what ab and c are equal to).

        brackets are purely notational

        Yep, they’re a grouping symbol. Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols.