Skip Navigation

πŸ’‘πš‚π—†π–Ίπ—‹π—π—†π–Ίπ—‡ π™°π—‰π—‰π—ŒπŸ“±
πŸ’‘πš‚π—†π–Ίπ—‹π—π—†π–Ίπ—‡ π™°π—‰π—‰π—ŒπŸ“± @ SmartmanApps @programming.dev
Posts
22
Comments
591
Joined
2 yr. ago

6Γ·2(1+2)

Jump

  • There has apparently been historical disagreement over whether 6Γ·2(3) is equivalent to 6Γ·2x3

    No, there hasn't - that's a false claim by a Youtuber (and others who repeated it) - it is equal to 6Γ·(2x3) as per The Distributive Law and Terms, and even as per the letter he quoted! Here is where I debunked that claim.

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • leaving us 3(3)

    You just did division before brackets, which violates order of operations rules. 6Γ·2(3)=6Γ·(2x3)=6Γ·6=1

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • Not thorough at all. Never once referenced an actual Maths textbook. Read this instead.

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • The blog post is fine

    Except that it's wrong. Read this instead.

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • People get polarised because of wrong articles like this one. Read this instead.

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • could we not have some international body just make a decision one way or the other

    There's no decision to be made. The correct rules are already taught in literally every Year 7-8 Maths textbook.

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • are reacting from their gut

    As was the person who wrote the article. Did you not notice the complete lack of Maths textbooks in it?

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • You probably missed the part where the article talks about university level math,

    This is high school level Maths. It's not taught at university.

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • 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).

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • 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.

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • 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).

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • 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.

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • Don't need any extra letters - just need people to remember the rules around expanding brackets in the first place.

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • 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.

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • there’s absolutely no difference in n(n-1) and n*(n-1)

    There is - the first is 1 term and the 2nd is 2 terms. Makes a difference if it's preceded by a division.

    it’s just matter of convenience you can leave it off.

    It's a matter of how many terms as to whether it's there or not.

    • Microsoft DevBlogs now federated

    Jump

  • Hi Maho! Good to see you here. I wasn't sure if you had joined here or not.

    I did not create this post

    No, I did (see previous point I wasn't sure if you were on here). :-) Although there is some overlap between here and Mastodon, there are some who are only getting their news here or there, so I made some posts here too. I made the actual original post in the Windows Development Community, and have had a few new subscribers as a result, so that's good. :-)

    I have been experimenting with ActivityPub for my site (https://maho.dev/2024/02/a-guide-to-implement-activitypub-in-a-static-site-or-any-website/)

    You might like to make your own, separate post about that. I didn't do one for it yet - needed to explore more what communities we have here that might suit it (e.g. I'm not sure if there's a ActivityPub Community). I just knew it didn't really fit into the Communities I was already subscribed to (though maybe this one?).

    I decided to create this bot, to see if it would be something useful for the fediverse

    That's a big thumbs up from me :-)

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

    • 6Γ·2(1+2)

    Jump

  • So you are saying exactly what I said; people can misinterpret things that other people have written

    No, I'm not. They're "misinterpreting" something that isn't even a rule of Maths. There's no way to misinterpret the actual rules, there's no way to misinterpret the equation. There's no alternative interpretations of the notation. Someone who didn't remember the rules literally made up "implicit multiplication", and then other people argued with them about what that meant. πŸ˜‚