6÷2(1+2)
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
🤣 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 :-)
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 🤣
…Because 4 rounds up to 4.5
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!
Exactly. With the blog post I try to reach people who already heared that some people say it's ambiguous but either down understand how, or don't believe it. I'm not sure if that will work out because people who "already know the only correct answer" probably won't read a 30min blog post.
Unfortunately these types of viral problems are designed the attract people who think they "know it all", so convincing them that their chosen answer isn't as right as they think it is will always be an uphill challenge
yeah, our math profs taught if the 2( is to be separated from that bracket for the implied multiplication then you do that math first, because the 2(1+2) is the same as (1+2)+(1+2) and not related to the first 6.
Yeah, that's why fractions are good thing.
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.
Ackshually, the answer is 4
6÷2*(1+2)
6÷(1+2)*2
6÷(3)*2
2*2
4
You're welcome
psychopath
Psychomath
c/TheyDidAMath
Typo in article:
If you are however willing to except the possibility that you are wrong.
Except should be 'accept'.
Not trying to be annoying, but I know people will often find that as a reason to disregard academic arguments.
Thank you very much 🫶. No it's not annoying at all. I'm very grateful not only for the fact that you read the post but also that you took the time to point out issues.
I just fixed it, should be live in a few minutes.
A person not knowing the difference in usage between except and accept sounds like a perfectly reasonable reason to disregard their math skills.
Especially when said person keeps making incorrect statements about Maths and ignores completely what is taught in high school.
academic arguments
The "academic arguments" can be ignored since this is actually high school Maths - it's taught in Year 7-8.
Great write up! The answer is use parentheses or fractions and stop wasting everyone’s time 😅
That's actually a great way of putting it 🤣
No it isn't dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110819283738912144
I tried explaining this to people on facebook in 2010 or so.
"You must be fun at parties!"
Bitch, i dont want to attend your lame ass party where people think they know how math works.
What if the real answer is the friends we made along the way?
This is Facebook we are talking about, what friends? Everyone hates everyone on Facebook
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! 😂
I love that the calculators showing different answers are both from the same manufacturer XD
In the blog post there are even more. Texas Instruments, HP and Canon also have calculators, and some of them show 9 and some 1.
What's especially wild to me is that even the position of "it's ambiguous" gets almost as much pushback as trying to argue that one of them is universally correct.
Last time this came up it was my position that it was ambiguous and needed clarification and had someone accuse me of taking a prescriptive stance and imposing rules contrary to how things were actually being done. How asking a person what they mean or seeking clarification could possibly be prescriptive is beyond me.
Bonus points, the guy telling me I was being prescriptive was arguing vehemently that implicit multiplication having precedence was correct and to do otherwise was wrong, full stop.
👍 That was actually one of the reasons why I wrote this blog post. I wanted to compile a list of points that show as clear as humanity possible that there is no consensus here, even amongst experts.
That probably won't convince everybody but if that won't probably nothing will.
I wanted to compile a list of points that show as clear as humanity possible that there is no consensus here, even amongst experts
And I wrote a bunch of fact checks pointing out there is consensus amongst the actual experts - high school Maths teachers and textbook authors, the 2 groups who you completely ignored in your blog post.
When I went to college, I was given a reverse Polish notation calculator. I think there is some (albeit small) advantage of becoming fluent in both PEMDAS and RPN to see the arbitrariness. This kind of arguement is like trying to argue linguistics in a single language.
Btw, I'm not claiming that RPN has any bearing on the meme at hand. Just that there are different standards.
This comment is left by the HP50g crew.
What’s especially wild to me is that even the position of “it’s ambiguous” gets almost as much pushback as trying to argue that one of them is universally correct.
That's because following the rules of Maths is universally correct.
arguing vehemently that implicit multiplication having precedence was correct and to do otherwise was wrong, full stop
He was using the wrong words, but he was correct - the actual rules are The Distributive Law and Terms ("implicit multiplication" is a rule made up by those who have forgotten these 2 rules).
Without any additional parentheses, the division sign is assumed to separate numerators and denominators within a complete expression, in which case you would reduce each separately. It's very, very marginally ambiguous at best.
My TI-84 Plus is my holy oracle, I will go with whatever it says.
And then get distracted and play some Doom.
It will give 9, just like my 89 emulator. The entire denominator of a fraction needs to be in parentheses or you get into trouble and it treats division like a fraction.
It treats division like a fraction
Which is why it gives the wrong answer.
Also you shouldn't be adding a dot between the 2 and the brackets - that also changes the answer.
❤️
TI calcs give the wrong answer, and it's in their manual why - they only follow the Primary School rule ("inside the brackets"), not the High School rule which supersedes it (The Distributive Law).
The real lesson here is that clear, unambiguous communication is key.
And just what do you mean by that?
/s
It's hilarious seeing all the genius commenters who didn't read the linked article and are repeating all the exact answers and arguments that the article rebuts :)
I'm still not used to having combined image and text posts so I usually don't notice the text portion if it isn't a big ol' wall and I hope I'm not the only one.
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.
he made a mistake posting this to a comment section, now he must pay the price
❤️ True, but I think one of the biggest problems is that it's pretty long and because you can't really sense how good/bad/convining the text is it's always a gamble for everybody if it's worth reading something for 30min just to find out that the content is garbage.
I hope I did a decent job in explaining the issue(s) but I'm definitely not mad if someone decides that they are not going to read the post and still comment about it.
No, it doesn't. It never talks about Terms, nor The Distributive Law (which isn't the same thing as the Distributive Property). These are the 2 rules of Maths which make this 100% not ambiguous.
Just write it better.
6/(2(1+2))
Or
(6/2)(1+2)
That's how it works in the real world when you're using real numbers to calculate actual things anyways.
But how would that go viral?
Just write it better.
6/(2(1+2))
If you really wanted extra brackets it'd be 6/(2)(1+2). Of course, since there's only 1 term in the first brackets they're redundant, hence 6/2(1+2) is the fully simplified form, and is the way it's written in Maths textbooks.
I always hate any viral math post for the simple reason that it gives me PTSD flashbacks to my Real Analysis classes.
The blog post is fine, but could definitely be condensed quite a bit across the board and still effectively make the same points would be my only critique.
At it core Mathematics is the language and practices used in order to communicate numbers to one another and it's always nice to have someone reasonably argue that any ambiguity of communication means that you're not communicating effectively.
The blog post is fine
Except that it's wrong. Read this instead.
I would also add that you shouldn't be using a basic calculator to solve multi part problems. Second, I haven't seen a division sign used in a formal math class since elementary and possibly junior high. These things are almost always written as fractions which makes the logic easier to follow. The entire point of working in convention is so that results are reproducible. The real problem though is that these are not written to educate anyone. They are deliberately written to confuse so that some social media personality can make money from clicks. If someone really wants to practice math skip the click and head over to the Kahn Academy or something similar.
basic calculator to solve multi part problems
This isn't a multi-part problem, and any basic calculator other than Texas Instruments gets it correct.
These things are almost always written as fractions
Fractions are always written as fractions - they are 1 term - 2 separate terms are always separated by an operator, such as a division sign, like in this case.
the Kahn Academy or something similar.
Good advice! In particular look up what they say about The Distributive Law.
I disagree. Without explicit direction on OOO we have to follow the operators in order.
The parentheses go first. 1+2=3
Then we have 6 ÷2 ×3
Without parentheses around (2×3) we can't do that first. So OOO would be left to right. 9.
In other words, as an engineer with half a PhD, I don't buy strong juxtaposition. That sounds more like laziness than math.
How are people upvoting you for refusing to read the article?
as an engineer with half a PhD
As an engineer with a full PhD. I'd say we engineers aren't that great with math problems like this. Thus any responsible engineer would write it in a way that cannot be misinterpreted. Because misinterpreted mathematics can kill people...
The oxford comma approach, I agree.
As an engineer with a full PhD. I’d say we engineers aren’t that great with math problems like this
Yay for a voice of reason! I've yet to see anyone who says they have a Ph.D. get this correct (I'm a high school Maths teacher/tutor - I actually teach this topic).
as a half PhD
Go read the article, it's about you
Go read the article, it’s about you
The article is wrong dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110897908266416158
Without parentheses around (2×3)
But there is parentheses around (2x3). a(b+c)=(ab+ac) - The Distributive Law. You can't remove them unless there is only 1 term left inside. You removed them when you still had 2 terms inside, 2x3.
6/2(1+2)=6/2(3)=6/(2*3)=6/6=1
OR
6/2(1+2)=6/(2+4)=6/6=1
Seems this whole thing is the pedestrian-math-nerd’s equivalent to the pedestrian-grammar-nerd’s arguments on the Oxford comma. At the end of the day it seems mathematical notation is just as flexible as any other facet of written human communication and the real answer is “make things as clear as possible and if there is ambiguity, further clarify what you are trying to communicate.”
Pretty much. While it's worth knowing that not everyone agrees on how implicit multiplication is prioritised, anywhere that everyone agreeing on the answer actually mattered, you wouldn't write an equation as ambiguous as this one in the first place
It's not ambiguous. People who say it is have usually forgotten The Distributive Law or Terms, or more commonly both!
Seems this whole thing is the pedestrian-math-nerd’s equivalent to the pedestrian-grammar-nerd’s arguments on the Oxford comma.
Not even remotely similar. Maths rules are fixed. The order of operations rules are at least 400 years old.
mathematical notation is just as flexible as any other facet of written human communication
No, it isn't. The book "A history of mathematical notation" is in itself more than 100 years old.
It's about a 30min read
I'd love to help but I'll wait for the tv miniseries
Interesting, I didn't know about strong implicit multiplication. So I would have said the result is 9. All along my studies in France, up to my physics courses at University, all my teachers used weak implicit multiplication. Could be it's the norm in France, or they only use it in math studies at University.
In a scientific context it's actually very rare to run into that issue because divisions are mostly written as fractions which will completely mitigate the issue.
The strong implicit multiplication will only cause ambiguity after a division with inline notation. Once you use fractions the ambiguity vanishes.
In practice you also rarely see implicit multiplications between numbers but mostly between variables or variables and their coefficients.
Def not a math major (BS/PharmD), but your explanation was like seeing through a visual illusion for the first time! lol
I was always taught PEMDAS growing up, and that the MD and the AS was read left to right in an equation like above. But stating the division as a fraction completely changes my mind now about how this calculation works. I think what would happen in a calculation I use every day if the former was used.
Example: Cockcroft-Gault Equation (estimation of renal function)
(140-age)(kg) / 72(SCr) vs (140-age) X kg ➗72 X SCr
In the first eq (correct one) an 80yo patient who weighs 65kg and has an SCr ~ 1.5 = 36.11
In the latter it = 81.25 (waaay too high for an 80yo lol)
edit: calculation variable
I didn't know until now that I unconsciously use strong implicit multiplication (meaning that I get the answer "1"). I believe it happens more or less as a consequence of starting inside the parentheses and then working my way out.
It is a funny little bit of notational ambiguity, so it is funny that people get riled up about it.
It is a funny little bit of notational ambiguity
It's not ambiguous - it's The Distributive Law. You got the correct answer, you just forgot what the rule is called (as opposed to people who forget the rule altogether).
I read the whole article. I don't agree with the notation of the American Physical Society, but who am I to argue that? 😄
I started out thinking I knew how the order of operations worked and ended up with a broader view of the subject. Thank you for opening my mind a bit today. I will be more explicit in my notations from now on.
Thank you so much for taking the time. I'm also not convinced that APS's notation is a very good choice but I'm neither american nor a physisist 🤣
I'd love to see how the exceptions work that the APS added, like allowing explicit multiplications on line-breaks, if they still would do the multiplication first, but I couldn't find a single instance where somebody following the APS notation had line-break inside an expression.
I don’t agree with the notation of the American Physical Society
I clicked on the link to see what you were talking about, and the quotes which are used in the blog aren't in there at all. i.e. I searched the whole document, not just the referenced page, and, for example, the expression "multiplication before division" isn't in there at all. On the other hand the stuff about not inserting multiplication signs into terms is 100% correct, because you are breaking up one term into two, and dropping the precedence from Terms to Multiplication, which changes the answer.
Build two cases, calculate for both, drag both case through the entirety of both problems, get two answers, make a case for both answers, end up with two hypothesis. Easy!
Check a high school Maths textbook - even easier!
I really hate the social media discussion about this. And the comments in the past teached me, there are two different ways of learning math in the world.
True, and it's not only about learning math but that there is actually no consensus even amongst experts, about the priority of implicit multiplications (without explicit multiplication sign). In the blog post there are a lot of things that try to show why and how that's the case.
It's not taught 2 different ways. It's taught the same around the world (the mnemonics are different but the rules are the same), there's just 2 types of people - those who remember the rules and those who don't. You'll notice students never get these questions wrong, only adults who've forgotten the rules.
1 2 + 2 * 6 /
What's the problem?
Also, you forgot my inlaws, one of whom believes the answer is 5.
Found the reverse Pole.
I'm not sure if you read the post yet but I also have a short section about alternative notations which are less ambiguous or never ambiguous. RPN has the same issue as most notations that are never ambiguous namely that it's hard to read - especially for big expressions.
It's actually 6 2 / 1 2 + *
It's three cubits in diameter and no ne cubits around.
Therefore π is three.
Fackz.
My only complaint is the suggestion that engineers like to be clear. My undergrad classes included far too many things like 2 cos 2 x sin y
I'd say engineers like to be exact, but they like being lazy even more
I think this speaks to why I have a total of 5 years of college and no degree.
Starting at about 7th grade, math class is taught to every single American school child as if they're going to grow up to become mathematicians. Formal definitions, proofs, long sets of rules for how you manipulate squiggles to become other squiggles that you're supposed to obey because that's what the book says.
Early my 7th grade year, my teacher wrote a long string of numbers and operators on the board, something like 6 + 4 - 7 * 8 + 3 / 9. Then told us to work this problem and then say what we came up with. This divided us into two groups: Those who hadn't learned Order of Operations on our own time who did (six plus four is ten, minus seven is three, times eight is 24, plus three is 27, divided by nine is three) Three, and who were then told we were wrong and stupid, and those who somehow had, who did (seven times eight is 56, three divided by nine is some tiny fraction...) got a very different number, and were told they were right. Terrible method of teaching, because it alienates the students who need to do the learning right off the bat. And this basically set the tone until I dropped out of college for the second time.
Yes, unfortunately there are some bad teachers around. I vividly remember the one I had in Year 10, who literally didn't care if we did well or not. I got sick for an extended period that year, and got a tutor - my Maths improved when I had the tutor (someone who actually helped me to learn the material)!
Meanwhile, I'm over in the corner like
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.
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.
It's like using literally to add emphasis to something that you are saying figuratively. It's not objectively "wrong" to do it, but the practice is adding uncertainty where there didn't need to be any, and thus slightly diminishes our ability to communicate clearly.
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).
I don't remember everything, but I remember the first two operations are exponents then parentheses. Edit: wait is it the other way around?
Yes it's the other way round. Parentheses are top priority.
The full story is actually more nuanced than most people think, but the post is actually very long (about 30min) so thank you in advance if you really find the time to read it.
bidmas
brackets, index (powers), division, multiplication, addition, subtraction.
brackets are always first that's the whole point of brackets
Forgot the algebra using fruit emoji or whatever the fuck.
Bonus points for the stuff where suddenly one of the symbols has changed and it's "supposedly" 1/2 or 2/3 etc. of a banana now, without that symbol having been defined.
This meme is specifically about the implicit multiplication because the article it links to is about that too.
But you are right there are a lot more "viral math" things than just the implicit multiplication problems 🤣
You guys are doing it all wrong: ask chatgpt for the correct answer and paste it here. Done.
Who needs to learn or know anything really?
ChatGPT's Answer:
The expression 6/2(1+2) involves both multiplication and division. According to the order of operations (PEMDAS/BODMAS), you should perform operations inside parentheses first, then any multiplication or division from left to right.
Let's break down the expression step by step:
Inside the parentheses: 1 + 2 = 3
Now the expression becomes 6/2 * 3
Division: 6/2 = 3
Multiplication: 3 * 3 = 9
So, 6/2(1+2) is equal to 9.
Chat GPT's answer for me:
Certainly! The expression 6/2(1+2) is ambiguous due to the implicit multiplication. Let's solve it in both ways:
- Implicit multiplication with higher priority:
\frac{6}{2}(1+2)
First, solve the parentheses:
\frac{6}{2}(3)
Now, perform the division:
3 \times 3 = 9
- Implicit multiplication with the same priority as division:
\frac{6}{2(1+2)}
Again, solve the parentheses:
\frac{6}{2(3)}
Now, perform the multiplication first:
\frac{6}{6} = 1
So, depending on the interpretation of implicit multiplication, you can get different results: 9 or 1.
I think it's funny that ChatGPT figured out 1 and 9 but has the steps completely backwards. First it points out what has high priority and then does the exact opposite, both times 🤣
ChatGPT says...
Hi, I’m stupid, is it 1+2 first, then multiple it by 2, then divide 6 by 6?
Or is it 1+2, then divide 6 by 2, then multiple?
I think it’s the first one but I’ve got no idea.
It's actually "both". There are two conventions. One is a bit more popular in science and engineering and the other one in the general population. It's actually even more complicated than that (thus the long blog post) but the most correct answer would be to point out that the implicit multiplication after the division is ambiguous. So it's not really "solvable" in that form without context.
It's the first, as per The Distributive Law and Terms. It could only ever be the second if the 6/2 was in brackets. i.e. (6/2)(1+2).
You lost me on the section when you started going into different calculators, but I read the rest of the post. Well written even if I ultimately disagree!
The reason imo there is ambiguity with these math problems is bad/outdated teaching. The way I was taught pemdas, you always do the left-most operations first, while otherwise still following the ordering.
Doing this for 6÷2(1+2), there is no ambiguity that the answer is 9. You do your parentheses first as always, 6÷2(3), and then since division and multiplication are equal in ordering weight, you do the division first because it's the left most operation, leaving us 3(3), which is of course 9.
If someone wrote this equation with the intention that the answer is 1, they wrote the equation wrong, simple as that.
The calculator section is actually pretty important, because it shows how there is no consensus. Sharp is especially interesting with respect to your comment because all scientific Sharp calculators say it's 1. For all the other brands for hardware calculators there are roughly 50:50 with saying 1 and 9.
So I'm not sure if you are suggesting that thousands of experts and hundreds of engineers at Casio, Texas Instruments, HP and Sharp got it wrong and you got it right?
There really is no agreed upon standard even amongst experts.
Hi, expert here, calculators have nothing to do with it. There's an agreed upon "Order of Operations" that we teach to kids, and there's a mutual agreement that it's only approximately correct. Calculators have to pick an explicit parsing algorithm, humans don't have to and so they don't. I don't look to a dictionary to tell me what I mean when I speak to another human.
it shows how there is no consensus
Used to not be. Except for Texas Instruments all the others reverted to doing it correctly now - I have no idea why Texas Instruments persists with doing it wrong. As you noted, Sharp has always done it correctly.
There really is no agreed upon standard even amongst experts
Yes there is. It's taught in literally every Year 7-8 Maths textbook (but apparently Texas Instruments don't care about that).
No, those companies aren't wrong, but they're not entirely right either. The answer to "6 ÷ 2(1+2)" is 1 on those calculators because that is a badly written equation and you(not literally you, to be clear) should feel bad for writing it, and the calculators can't handle it with their rigid hardcoded logic. The ones that do give the correct answer of 9 on that equation will get other equations wrong that it shouldn't be, again because the logic is hardcoded.
That doesn't change the fact that that equation worked out on paper is absolutely 9 based on modern rules of math. Calculate the parentheses first, you then have 6 ÷ 2(3). We could solve from here, but to make the point extra clear I'm going to actually expand this out to explicit multiplication. "2(3)" is the same as "2 x 3", so we can rewrite the equation as "6 ÷ 2 x 3". All operators now inarguably have equal precedence, which means the only factor left in which order to do the operations is left to right, and thus division first. The answer can only be 9.
There has apparently been historical disagreement over whether 6÷2(3) is equivalent to 6÷2x3
As a logician instead of a mathemetician, the answer is "they're both wrong because they have proven themselves ambiguous". Of course, my answer would be RPN to be a jerk or just have more parens to be a programmer
There has apparently been historical disagreement over whether 6÷2(3) is equivalent to 6÷2x3
No, there hasn't - that's a false claim by a Youtuber (and others who repeated it) - it is equal to 6÷(2x3) as per The Distributive Law and Terms, and even as per the letter he quoted! Here is where I debunked that claim.
leaving us 3(3)
You just did division before brackets, which violates order of operations rules. 6÷2(3)=6÷(2x3)=6÷6=1
When I used to play WoW years ago I'd always put -6 x 6 - 6 = -12 in trade chat and they would all lose their minds.
Adding that incorrect solution usually got them more riled up than having no solution.
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.
My years out of school has made me forget about how division notation is actually supposed to work and how genuinely useless the ÷ and / symbols are outside the most basic two-number problems. And it's entirely me being dumb because I've already written problems as 6÷(2(1+2)) to account for it before. Me brain dun work right ;~;
There's no forms consensus on which one is correct. To avoid misunderstanding mathematicians use a horizontal bar.
The one that is least ambiguous is objectively more correcter.
Only if it's a fraction. If it's 2 separate terms then you use whatever your country uses for division - obelus or colon or whatever. They have to be 2 separate things, otherwise how would you write to divide by a fraction?
I guess if you wrote it out with a different annotation it would be
-‐--------‐--------------
--‐--------‐--------------
=1
I hate the stupid things though
I guess if you wrote it out with a different annotation it would be
--‐--------‐-------------- 2(1+2)
= 6 --‐--------‐-------------- 2×3
= 6 --‐--------‐-------------- 6
=1
I hate the stupid things though
I recall learning in school that it should be left to right when in doubt. Probably a cop-out from the teacher
"when in doubt" is a bit broad but left to right is a great default for operations with the same priority. There is actually a way to calculate in any order if divisions are converted to multiplications (by using the reciprocal value) and subtractions are converted to additions (by negating the value) that requires at least a little bit of math knowledge and experience so it's typically not taught until later to prevent even more confusion.
For example this: 6 / 2 * 3 can also be rewritten as 6 * 2⁻¹ * 3 and because multiplication is commutative you can now do it in any order for example like 3 * 6 * 2⁻¹
You can also "rearrange" the order without changing the meaning if you move the correct operation (left to the number) with it (should only be done with explicit multiplication)
6 / 2 * 3 into 6 * 3 / 2 (note that I moved the division with the 2)
You can even bring the two to the front. Just remember that left to the six is an "imaginary" (don't quote me ^^) multiplication. And because we can't just move "/2" to the beginning we have to insert a one (empty product - check Wikipedia) like so:
1 / 2 * 6 * 3
This also works for addition and subtraction
7 + 8 - 5
You can move them around if you take the operation left to the number with it. With addition the "imaginary" operation at the beginning is a plus sign and the implicit number you use is zero (empty sum - check Wikipedia)
8 - 5 + 7
or like this
0 - 5 + 8 + 7
because with negative numbers you can use the minus sign to indicate negative numbers you can even drop the leading zero like this
-5 + 8 + 7
That's not really possible with multiplication because "/2" is not a valid notation for "1/2"
this is beautiful but my brain glazed over when i saw so many numbers, back to eating glue for me!
6 / 2 * 3 into 6 * 3 / 2 (note that I moved the division with the 2)
And note that it doesn't work if the multiply was an addition. e.g. 6/2+3=6 but 6+3/2=7.5. Multiplication and division are both binary operators, and you can't move them around unless you also move the term to the left with it. i.e. 6/2+3=6. 3+6/2=6.
Just remember that left to the six is an “imaginary” (don’t quote me ^^) multiplication
No, to the left of the 6 is an actual plus sign, but we don't write plus signs if it's at the start of an expression. +6 and x6 aren't the same thing at all (and, since x is a binary operator, you couldn't write just x6 anyway - there would have to be a term to it's left). No expression ever starts with x6.
That’s not really possible with multiplication because “/2” is not a valid notation for “1/2”
It's not a valid notation for multiplication either - both multiplication and division are binary operators and must be written with 2 terms.
Probably a cop-out from the teacher
No, that's an actual convention of Maths, to make sure people (who don't know better) obey the actual rule of left associativity.
I just finished your article and wow! I'm definitely going to save it and share it the next time I come across another one of those viral problems. It was incredibly thorough and well researched, you clearly put a lot of energy and effort into it and it blew me away. It was really refreshing to see someone articulate themselves so passionately with supporting research. I look forward to reading more of your work!! 👏
Thank you for your kind words, really appreciate it.
It was incredibly thorough and well researched
It never mentions the 2 relevant rules of Maths, nor any textbooks, nor speaks to any Maths teachers. You can find all those thing here
I found a few typos. In the 2nd paragraph under the section "strong feelings", you use "than" when it should be "then". More importantly, when talking about distributive properties, you say x(x+z)=xy+xz. I believe you meant x(y+z)=xy+xz.
Otherwise, I enjoyed that read. I'm embarrassed to say that I did think pemdas meant multiplication came before division, however I'm proud to say that I've unconsciously known that it's important to avoid the ambiguity by putting parentheses everywhere for example when I make formulas in spreadsheets. Which by the way, spreadsheets generally allow multiplication by juxtaposition.
Thank you so much for taking the time and reading the post. I just fixed the typos, many thanks for pointing them out.
There is nothing really to be embarrassed about and if you look at the comment sections of such viral math posts you can see that you are certainly not the only one. I think that mnemonics that use "MD" and "AS" without grouping like in "PE(MD)(AS)" are really to blame here.
An alternative would be to drop the inverse and only use say multiplication and addition as I suggested with "PEMA" but with "PEMDAS" one basically sets up students for the problem that they think that multiplication comes before division.
It’s actually fine to do multiplication before division, you just have to be sure about which numbers are intended to be included in the divisor of your fraction!
I believe you meant x(y+z)=xy+xz.
Actually it should be x(y+z)=(xy+xz), as that's exactly where a lot of people go wrong. They go from 6/2(1+2) to 6/2x3, instead of to 6/(2x3), and thus end up with the wrong answer (cos that flipped the 3 from being in the denominator to being in the numerator. i.e. instead of dividing by 3 they are now multiplying by 3, all because they removed brackets prematurely).
That blog post was awesome, thanks for doing that work and letting us know about it!
Thank you for taking the time to read it.
Don't forget math with fruits! https://imgur.com/JOuRhQ3
Just saw the image you posted and it's awesome :-) I'm part of the group that can't solve it, because I don't know the 🌭 function from the top of my head. I also found the choice of symbols interesting that 🌭 is analytical continuation of 🍔 and not the other way round 🤣
The order of operations is not part of a holy text that must be blindly followed. If these numbers had units and we knew what quantity we were trying to solve for, there would be no argument whatsoever about what to do. This is a question that never comes up in physics because you can use dimensional analysis to check to see if you did the algebra correctly. Context matters.
The order of operations is not part of a holy text that must be blindly followed
No, it's in Maths textbooks, and must be... blindly followed. :-)
If these numbers had units
...it wouldn't matter at all. The order of operations comes from the very definitions of the operators themselves. e.g. 2x3 is shorthand for 2+2+2.
It’s also clearly not a bug as some people suggest. Bugs are – by definition – unintended behavior.
There are plenty of bugs that are well documented. I can't tell you the number of times that I've seen someone do something wrong, that they think is 100% right, and "carefully" document it. Then someone finds an edge case and points out the defined behavior has a bug, because the human forgot to account for something.
The other thing I'd point out that I didn't see in your blog is that I've seen many many people say they need to evaluate the 2(3) portion first because "parenthesis". No matter how many times I explain that this is a notation for multiplication, they try to claim it doesn't matter because parenthesis. screams into the void
The fact of the matter is that any competent person that has to write out one of these equations will do so in a way that leaves no ambiguity. These viral math posts are just designed to insert ambiguity where it shouldn't be, and prey on people who can't remember middle school math.
Regarding your first part in general true, but in this case the sheer amount of calculators for both conventions show that this is indeed intended behavior.
Regarding your second point I tried to address that in the "distributive property" section, maybe I need to rewrite it a bit to be more clear.
Regarding your second point I tried to address that in the “distributive property” section,
When I discovered this comment I went to read it, and yes, it's true you discussed the Distributive Property, however, what these people are talking about is The Distributive Law which isn't the same thing (though people often call it the wrong name), and makes the question completely unambiguous. You literally can't move on from the "B", Brackets, in the rules until there are no brackets left - the B is literally short for "solve Brackets" (every letter is "solve (something)"), and so anyone who does the division before solving the brackets has just violated the order of operations rules.
No matter how many times I explain that this is a notation for multiplication
It ISN'T a notation for multiplication - it's a notation for a factorised term, and if you ignore The Distributive Law going back the other way then you just broke the factorised term dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110886637077371439
any competent person that has to write out one of these equations will do so in a way that leaves no ambiguity.
This one already does have no ambiguity.
I feel like if a blog post presents 2 options and labels one as the "scientific" one... And it is a deserved Label. Then there is probably a easy case to be made that we should teach children how to understand scientific papers and solve the equation in it themselves.
Honestly I feel like it reads better too but that is just me
I'm not sure if I'd call it the "scientific" one. I'd actually say that the weak juxtaposition is just the simple one schools use because they don't want to confuse everyone. Scientist actually use both and make sure to prevent ambiguity. IMHO the main takeaway is that there is no consensus and one has to be careful to not write ambiguous expressions.
I mean the blog post says
"If you are a student at university, a scientist, engineer, or mathematician you should really try to ask the original author what they meant because strong juxtaposition is pretty common in academic circles, especially if variables are involved like in $a/bc$ instead of numbers."
It doesn't say scientific but...
I’d actually say that the weak juxtaposition is just the simple one schools use
Schools don't teach "weak juxtaposition" - they teach the actual rules of Maths! As per what's in Maths textbooks. It's adults who've forgotten the rules who make up the "weak juxtaposition" rule. See Lennes.
We do teach children how to solve this. It's not children who get it wrong - it's adults that get it wrong! Cos they've forgotten the rules of Maths (in this case The Distributive Law and Terms).
I don't have much to say on this, other than that I appreciate how well-written this deep dive is and I appreciate you for writing it. People get so polarized with these viral math problems and it baffles me.
People get polarised because of wrong articles like this one. Read this instead.
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.
A couple of edits (not trying to be rude but people sent to your article are going to be pedantic)
*current beliefs
This sentence needs editing: "They even split the category into two and the make a distinction between implicit multiplication with variables other implicit multiplications."
Thank you for reading the post, and thanks for pointing that out. Should be fixed and live in the next few minutes.
Update: Also fixed that sentence. Thank you so much.
A fair criticism. Though I think the hating on PEDMAS (or BODMAS as I was taught) is pretty harsh, as it very much does represent parts of the standard of reading mathematical notation when taught correctly. At least I personally was taught its true form was a vertical format:
B
O
DM
AS
I'd also say it's problematic to rely on calculators to implement or demonstrate standards, they do have their own issues.
But overall, hey, it's cool. The world needs more passionate criticisms of ambiguous communication turning into a massive interpration A vs interpretation B argument rather than admitting "maybe it's just ambiguous".
The problem with BODMAS is that everybody is taught to remember "BODMAS" instead of "BO-DM-AS" or "BO(DM)(AS)". If you can't remember the order of operations by heart you won't remember that "DM" and "AS" are the same priority, that's why I suggested dropping "division" and "subtraction" entirely from the mnemonic.
It's true that calculators also don't dictate a standard but they implement what conventions are typically used in practice. If a convention would be so dominating (let's say 95% vs 5%) all calculator manufacturers would just follow the 95% convention, except maybe for some very special-purpose calculators.
In fairness, I did quite like the suggestion to just remove division and subtraction! One that should be taken to heart :)
Calculators do not implement "what conventions are typically used in practice." Entering symbols one by one into a calculator is a fundamentally different process from writing them in a sentence. A basic traditional calculator will evaluate each step as you enter it, so e.g. writing 1 + 2 3 will print 1, then 3, then 6. It only gets one digit at a time, so it has no choice. But also, this lends itself to iterative calculation, which is inherently ordered. People using calculators get used to this order of operations specifically while using calculators, and now even some of the fancy ones that evaluate expressions use it. Others switched to the conventional order of operations.
i didn’t fully understand the article, but it was really interesting reading summaries & side discussions in the comments here!
i enjoy content like this that demonstrates how math is at its heart a useful tool for conceptualizing things vs some kind of immutable force.
I agree with your core message, that the issue is caused by bad notation. However I don't really see why you consider implicit multiplication to be the sole reason. In my mind, a/bc is equally as ambiguous as a/b*c. The symbols are not important.
You don't even consider this in your article, instead you seem to take the position that the operations are resolved from left to right. This idea probably comes from programming languages, as they commonly use this convention, but I haven't seen this defined in mathematics anywhere. I'm open to being wrong here, so if you can show me such a definition from an authoritative source (maybe ISO) I'd be thankful.
As it stands, you basically claim "the original notation is ambiguous, but with explicit × the answer is obviously nine, because my two calculators agree", even though you just discounted calculator proofs. By the way, both calculators explicitly define this left-to-right order in their documentation.
The ISO section 7.1.3 you quoted is very reasonable and succinct, and contradicts your claim that explicit multiplication sign removes ambiguity. There would be no need for this section if a left-to-right rule existed.
Standards are as mentioned in the article often extra careful to prevent confusion and thus often stricter than widespread conventions with things they allow and don't allow.
a/b*c is not ambiguous because no widespread convention would treat it any other way than (a/b)*c.
But you can certainly try to proof me wrong by showing me a calculator that would evaluate 6/2*3 to anything but 9.
So if there is not a single calculator out there that would come to a different result, how can it be ambiguous?
Update: Standards are rule-books for real projects to make it simpler to work together. It's a bit like a Scrabble dictionary. If a word is missing in the official Scrabble dictionary, it doesn't automatically mean that it's not a real word, it just means that it wouldn't be allowed to play that word in official Scrabble tournaments.
Same with (ISO) standards. Just because the standard forbids it doesn't mean it's not widespread or forbidden generally. It's only forbidden in a context where all participants agreed to follow the standard.
All of the programming languages I can think of apply operator precedence as noted in the first reply. That's the only standard I ever learned, and I've never seen any ambiguity in that.
a/bc is equally as ambiguous as a/b*c
It's not ambiguous at all. By the definition of Terms - ab=(axb) - a/bc is 2 terms and a/bxc is 3 terms. If we were to write it in fraction form (to illustrate the difference), in the former c is in the denominator, but in the latter it's in the numerator, hence a different answer. dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110846452267056791
you seem to take the position that the operations are resolved from left to right... but I haven’t seen this defined in mathematics anywhere
It applies to operators, or more precisely division. When doing the divisions, you have to do them left-to-right, but other than that each of the operators can be done in any order. i.e. it doesn't matter what order you do the multiplications in, as long as you do them before the additions and subtractions. Unfortunately I've seen many people misremember left-to-right as an overarching rule, rather than only applying to division.
I don't see the problem actually.
==========
The meme refers to the problem of handling implicit multiplication by juxtaposition.
Depending on what field you're in, implicit multiplication takes priority over explicit multiplication/division (known as strong juxtaposition) rather than what you and a lot of people would assume (known as weak juxtaposition).
With weak juxtaposition you end up 9 just as you did, but with strong juxtaposition you end up with 1 instead.
For most people and most scenarios this doesn't matter, as you'd never encounter such ambiguous equations outside of viral puzzles like this, but it is worth knowing that not all fields agree on how implicit multiplication is handled.
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 👌
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.
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.
Even more ambiguous math notations
Except that isn't ambiguous either. See my reply to the original comment.
Geogebra has indeed found a good solution
Geogebra has done the same thing as Desmos, which is wrong. Desmos USED TO give correct answers, but then they changed it to automatically interpret / as a fraction, which is good, except when they did that it ALSO now interprets ÷ as a fraction, which is wrong. ½ is 1 term, 1÷2 is 2 terms (but Desmos now treats it as 1 term, which goes against the definition of terms)
What’s |a|b|c|?
The absolute value of a, times b, times the absolute value of c (which would be more naturally written as b|ac|). Unlike brackets, there's no such thing as nested absolute value. If you wanted it to read as the absolute value of (a times the absolute value of b times c), then that's EXACTLY the same answer as the absolute value of (a times b times c), which is why nested absolute values make no sense - you only have to take absolute value once to get rid of all the contained signs.
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?
You are right the manual isn't very clear here. My guess is that parentheses are also considered Type B functions. I actually chose those calculators because I have them here and can test things and because they split the implicit multiplication priority. Most other calculators just state "implicit multiplication" and that's it.
My guess is that the list of Type B functions is not complete but implicit multiplication with parentheses should be considered important enough for it to be documented.
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.
Negative reviews for the calculator that does OOO wrong.