Timeline for Parsing an English to Math expression question, is this ambiguous?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 18, 2023 at 20:16 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @TrevorD : You were warned in advance that it could be an "expression", which would normally be a noun rather than a sentence, that was to be translated into mathematical notation. It is crystal-clear that it meant either 1/(5x) or (1/5)x, and it's pretty strongly indicated that it meant the former. It's plainly not gibberish even if it is clumsily expressed. | |
| May 18, 2019 at 16:49 | comment | added | painfulenglish | The appropriate language for mathematical questions is mathematics. | |
| May 18, 2019 at 16:08 | answer | added | Dave L Renfro | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 6, 2019 at 21:25 | answer | added | Acccumulation | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 5, 2019 at 18:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackEnglish/status/1125098008419414016 | ||
| Apr 29, 2019 at 17:07 | comment | added | Clayton | This is a good question to ask; it highlights the inconsistencies one often sees in mathematics. | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 15:18 | comment | added | BoldBen | @AndreasBlass because the simplest way to express (1/5)x would be "that number divided by five". | |
| Apr 28, 2019 at 2:02 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | @BoldBen I don't see that "the reciprocal of five times that number" removes the cause of the ambiguity. There's still ambiguity between "(the reciprocal of five) times that number" and "the reciprocal of (five times that number)". | |
| Apr 27, 2019 at 6:43 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | @AndyT, "one and five" could also be 17 pence in the right context (pre-decimal British currency). | |
| Apr 26, 2019 at 17:57 | vote | accept | Alan | ||
| Apr 26, 2019 at 15:01 | comment | added | AndyT | Well, on the logic that "four and twenty" = 4+20 = 24, "one and five" is clearly equal to 6. As a native BrE speaker "quotient" isn't a familiar word to me, but my googling has only led to examples of the form "A divided by B gives the quotient C"; "the quotient of A and B" would therefore appear to be meaningless gobblydegook on its own, let alone including the ambiguity of what the "times" refers to. | |
| Apr 26, 2019 at 5:45 | comment | added | Lawrence | The expression is literally 1/5*x. This introduces the main source of ambiguity. If you apply good 'ol BIMDAS, you'd apply the multiplication operator before division, giving you 1/(5x). Use BODMAS, and you get x/5. | |
| Apr 26, 2019 at 5:16 | answer | added | postmortes | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 26, 2019 at 3:44 | answer | added | alasher | timeline score: 6 | |
| Apr 26, 2019 at 0:40 | comment | added | BoldBen | It's terrible. The 'question' defines the variable x as the unknown number and then doesn't use the defined variable. It would be marginally better if it said "Let x represent the unknown number then express the quotient of one and five times that number." However the best way to express what the computer accepts would be "...then express the reciprocal of five times that number". That would avoid the jump cut at the end of the definition and remove the cause of the ambiguity. Best of luck when arguing with the software vendor! | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 23:18 | comment | added | TrevorD | But a "statement" still needs to be in the form of a sentence! If it had a verb in it, it might make more sense. | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 23:15 | comment | added | Alan | @TrevorD Well, it didn't claim to be a sentence, just a statement. But yeah, the problem to me is the lack of clarity in the reference, just wanted to double check with a few random strangers on the internet before I take up the battle with a major educational software vendor! | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 23:08 | comment | added | TrevorD | It's complete nonsense and completely ambiguous! "The quotient of one and five times a number." is not even a proper sentence (there is no verb) and it's not clear what it's referring to. | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 22:56 | comment | added | Hot Licks | It's gibberish to me. | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 22:49 | history | asked | Alan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |