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 :)
without even reading all of what you’re replying to
I read what you wrote when you said...
the writer is leaving an ambiguous assumption in a mathematical notation
...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.
Are you retarded?
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).
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.
I see only one of us is stupid enough to roll through a 3 month old thread chirping at everyone
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).
trying to shill the fact that you’re a teacher
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.