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 :)
So it's "higher operands first, then left to right." I agree. But you presuppose that e.g. multiplication is higher than addition (which, again, I agree with). But now they say implicit multiplication is higher than explicit multiplication. You apparently disagree, but this has nothing to do with "left to right" now.
Just because they say one type of multiplication has precedence doesn't make it so. We've already shown how using parenthesis negates that concept, and matches the output of the method that doesn't give implicit multiplication precedence, ipso facto, giving ANY multiplication precedence over other multiplication or division doesn't conform to the rule of highest-operand left to right and doesn't conform to mathematical notation, and provides an answer that is wrong when the equation is correctly extrapolated with parenthesis, ergo it is utterly conceptually, objectively, and demonstrably, incorrect.
Edit: It was at this moment he realised, he fucked up. Using parenthesis doesn't resolve to one or the other because the issue is inherent ambiguity in how the the unstated operand is represented by the intention of the writer. They're both wrong because the writer is leaving an ambiguous assumption in a mathematical notation. Ergo, USE PARENTHESES, ALWAYS.
There's no ambiguity - The Distributive Law applies to all bracketed terms.
You're responding to a 3 month old post without even reading all of what you're replying to. Are you retarded?
I read what you wrote when you said...
...and I responded by saying there's no such thing as ambiguity in Maths (and in this case it's because of The Distributive Law, and the paragraph before that was about "implicit multiplication" of which there is no such thing). I therefore have no idea what you're talking about in saying I'm replying to something I haven't read, when I quite clearly am responding to something I have read.
No, I'm a Maths teacher (hence why I know it's not ambiguous - I know The Distributive Law. In fact I teach it. You can find info about it here - contains actual Maths textbook references, unlike the original article under discussion here).
So you are retarded.
I see only one of us has read those textbook references.
I see only one of us is stupid enough to roll through a 3 month old thread chirping at everyone and trying to shill the fact that you're a teacher. Your social retardation is matched only by your unequivocally unearned ego.
Engaged in several proper conversations with people now, so it's active again, not "3 months old". Maybe you should try reading some of those conversations (since you don't seem to want to read textbooks).
I try to mention it as little as possible actually. It's only when I see something outrageously wrong mathematically that I point out they're trying to gaslight a Maths teacher, so that ain't gonna work.
🤡