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
        ·
        6 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.