Th4tGuyII

Except that it is clearly satire - it’s poking fun at the idea of anti-intellectualism.

Having said that, one could argue Poe’s law - it can be hard to tell these days what’s satire and what’s not, and not everybody is laughing at anti-intellectualism

Wish it was Gonald, but today’s definitely a Miguel day

Truly the dichotomy of man

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

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.

So you were taught strong juxtaposition then, where the implicit multiplication takes priority?

I’ll just say it again, you’re the one saying this problem is completely unambiguous, with your only explanation as to why being that real people communicate as though that solves every edge case imaginable.

I’m just saying, if you really believe that to be the case, Good luck.

We only get to elect our local member of Parliament, who represents a party. They elect the actual prime-minister, and when one is kicked out before election time, they get to pick another one.

That’s how we’ve had so many without having multiple elections, cause we didn’t pick them.

Also, for some reason loads of young people just don’t vote, meaning the old fogies who do vote the Tories in over and over, who (in theory) benefit them but fuck everybody else…

In actuality they fuck everybody except the rich, but as long as they say and do some racist/xenophobic things now and again, the old fogies run to the polls to vote them in over and over.

I wish I could write better…

Bad handwriting literally runs in my family, and as hard as I’ve tried I’ve never been able to improve it. I’ve resorted to writing in block, and even then it still looks scruffy.

Yet some of my colleagues have wonderful handwriting, and it makes me wonder why I couldn’t have been born with better hands.

I’m going to start trying to learn how to draw in the New Year, so I hope that helps in some way.

That’s rich considering what sparked this conversation was you refusing to answer a simple question.

Good luck to you too - with reading comprehension like your’s, you might just need it.

When the @onion said there were two different sets of rules, you know as well as I do that they meant strong vs. weak juxtaposition.

You’re right that in reality nobody would write an equation like this, and if they did they would usually provide context to help resolve it without resorting to having to guess…

But the point of this post is exactly to point out this hole that exists in the standard order of operations, the drama that has resulted from it, and to shine some light on it.

Picking a side makes no sense only if you have the context to otherwise resolve it… If you were told to solve this equation, and given no other context to do so, you would either have to pick a side or resolve it both ways and give both answers. In that scenario, crossing your arms and refusing to because “it doesn’t make sense” would get you nowhere.

In all honesty, I think you’re acting like the people who say things like “I’ve never used algebra, so it was worthless teaching me it as a kid” as though there aren’t people who would learn something out of this.

No, that’s just not what happened. “Strong juxtaposition,” while well-defined, is a post-hoc rationalization. Meaning in particular that people who believe that this expression is best interpreted with “strong juxtaposition” don’t really believe in “strong juxtaposition” as a rule. What they really believe is that communication is subtle and context dependent, and the traditional order of operations is not comprehensive enough to describe how people really communicate. And that’s correct.

I think you’re putting the cart before the horse here - there is definitely a communication issue around juxtaposition, but you’re acting as though strong juxtaposition is some kind of social commentary on the standard order of operations rather than the reality that it is an interpretation that arose due to ambiguity, just as weak juxtaposition did.

If it were people just trying to make a point, then why would it be so widely used and most scientific calculators are designed to use it, or allow its use. This debate exists because so many people ascribe to one or the other without thinking.

My degree specialization is in algebraic topology.

One - that does sound kind of cool

Two - You still have a mathematics degree do you not? You said this was an easy “unambiguous” problem to solve, so I don’t see how you’re prohibited from solving it…

The issue is that this question disregards and undermines my point and asks me to pick a side, arbitrarily, that (as I’ve already explained) I don’t actually believe in.

God saying stuff like that, you sound just like an enlightened centrist…

Anyways, even if you don’t want to comment on the strong vs. weak juxtaposition debate, unless you simply intend on never solving any equation with implicit multiplication by juxtaposition ever again, then you must have a way of interpreting it.

That is what you’re being asked to disclose, since you seem to be very certain that there is a correct way of resolving this. You’ve brought the question upon yourself.

If you don’t want to take a side, simply saying the rules are ambiguous and technically both positions are correct depending on what field you’re in is also a valid position…

But denying the problem all together is not productive.

I didn’t misread, you’re in denial.

In the first place I don’t think you’ve proven me wrong. As far as I can tell your comments still boil down to that you think the whole debate is wrong, and that engaging in the debate is dumb.

But I can say for certain that you either misread or deliberately misconstrued at least part of my reply, because when responding to me you removed the “you follow” from it, which changes the interpretation.

If you think that wasn’t what I said, feel free to go back and look.

Hopefully by this point in the comment you understand that I don’t believe the question makes sense.

I understand you don’t believe the question makes sense, you’ve said that enough times…

But I’ll just refer you to my earlier comment - unless you intend on never solving any equation involving implicit multiplication ever again, then you must ascribe to one way or the other of resolving it.

Again, that’s your fault-- you’ve clearly misinterpreted what I said.

Then tell me how I’ve misinterpreted what you said, because I stick by what I said as far as your example goes.

Your choice of example is not only a much more clear cut issue, being that most kids are taught by primary school (or the US equivalent) how and where to capitalise their letters, and to me it also demonstrates that you’ve not understood that the whole reason this debate is a thing is directly because there’s no “wrong way” of doing this.

If I didn’t think this conversation was worth having I wouldn’t be responding to you.

I understand you see this conversation with me as worth having, but I suspect this is more to do with wanting to resolve this conversation in your favour than it is to do with the underlying debate.

There aren’t two different sets of rules. There’s the simple model that’s commonly understood and taught to kids, and there’s the real world where you have context and the dynamics of a conversation and years of experience with communication. One is well defined, the other isn’t.

And that simple model, well-defined model didn’t properly account for juxtaposition, which is how different fields have ended up with two different ways of interpreting it, i.e. strong vs. weak juxtaposition.

In the real world you simply wouldn’t write any equation out in such a way as to allow misinterpretation like this, but that’s ignoring the elephant in the room…

Which is that the reason viral problems like this still come about and why @wischi went through the effort of writing a rather detailed blog on this is because the order of operations most people are taught doesn’t cover juxtaposition.

Them asking me to solve the arithmetic problem is condescending, yes.

Considering your degree specialisation is in solving arithmetic problems, I don’t see the issue with them asking you to put your money where your mouth is and spit out a number if it’s so easy.

My response didn’t say “anyone who disagrees with the convention is stupid.” Here’s condescension for you: please don’t make your reading level my problem.

Ironic that you tell me to check my reading comprehension right after you misquote me, but nonetheless that is the impression your responses have given off - and you haven’t done anything so far to dispel that impression.

What I said was, there’s an unambiguous way to parse the expression according to the commonly understood order of operations, but it is atypical to pay that much attention to the order of operations in practice.

Yes, and the question everyone is asking you is what is that unambiguous way? Which side of weak or strong juxtaposition do you come out on?

If you think that’s a value judgment, that’s on you-- I was very clear in my example about capitalization, “strictly adhering to the conventional order of operations” is something reasonable people often just don’t care about.

The value judgement was actually more to do with your choice of example, and how you applied that example to this debate. It gave me the distinct impression that you view this debate as not worth having, as anybody who does juxtaposition differently from you is wrong out the gate - and again, your further responses only reinforce my impression of you.

I can’t have stopped because I never started, because I’m not even married… See, even I can answer your bad faith question better than you answered the one @onion asked you.

But I will give it to you that my comment should’ve stipulated avoiding reasonable questions.

The difference is that there are two sets of rules already in use by large groups of people, so which do you consider correct?

However I still think you need your eyes checked, as the end of this comment by @onion is very clearly a question asking you WHICH ruleset you consider correct.

Unless you’re refusing the notion of multiplication by juxtaposition entirely, then you must be on one side of this or the other.

@relevants you truly are the smartest of all men

They weren’t asking you if there are two sets of rules, we’re in a thread that’s basically all qbout the Weak vs. Strong juxtaposition debate, they asked you which you consider correct.

Giving the answer to a question they didn’t ask to avoid the one they did is immature.

The standard order of operations is as well defined as a notational convention can be.

If it was so well defined, then how did two different sets of rules regarding juxtaposition even come to be?
A well-defined order of operations shouldn’t have a hole that big.

Also, @wischi asking you to give the answer as defined by your convention isn’t condescending, they’re asking you to put your money where your mouth is…

Your response certainly felt condescending though, especially since your “explanation” was essentially that anyone who disagrees with the convention you follow is wrong and should feel stupid, and that you needn’t even consider it.

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

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!

That was sort of where I was going with my original comment.

Capitalism isn’t perfect, but that doesn’t mean switching economic systems is going to help out, because every economic system will suck somehow… especially if the people at the top are corrupt.

Oh I absolutely agree, we don’t have it as bad as the US. Having said that I’m from the UK, and it seems out government is very keen on trying the US style of capitalism.