I wrote the original reply as a joke. Clearly we’re not playing by any sort of rules here. so worrying about the difference between digit and number is kinda funny. but then I thought it would be fun to actually drastically overthink it and be overly pedantic about what the question says.

So no, not bitter. I just have a very bad sense of humor and find dumb things entertaining.

Now isn’t the time to start being pedantic about rules.

edit: the prompt says “Circle the smallest number” and not “Circle the smallest number that appears below”. What is the smallest number? 0 (at least by magnitude, negative numbers are just bigger numbers in the negative direction). So the prompt effectively says “Circle the zero”

If we’re going to work off the “that appears below” assumption. then the smallest number is “1” and not 1, 2, and 3. So circling all 3 is incorrect.

If we’re going to work off “that appears below, not including the categories” then the number to circle is 15 specifically. Not the “2.” in front of it.

And if there is a “circle the category indicator number for the category that includes the smallest number below” implication, then it’s truly just a bad question. Make it clear what you want.

There is a 0 in the bottom row. That is the smallest number. That’s why these were all wrong. Also it says number singular and they circled all 3

https://youtu.be/d-YcVLq98Ew

Basically there aren’t a lot of upsides and plenty of downsides

Lol.

“Foot means played on foot” is not the same as “every other sport must be played on horse”. Football naming etymology has no impact on the naming of other sports. Chess is often played in a chair, not on foot, so it already is a non foot game. The lack of distinguishing may be to allow some chess players to optionally stand, or play from horseback if desired.

It DOES mean though that you are not allowed to play American football on horseback.

Sports are called “foot” ball because they involve running and aren’t played on horses. And “ball” doesn’t mean “sphere”

I don’t watch association, Australian, rugby or American football, but you’ve bothered the etymologist in me with your nonsense suggestion.

https://www.amazon.com/Kangaroo-Exercise-200-242lbs-90-110kg-Bouncing/dp/B00M3O1EU6/143-4391115-7611302?psc=1

And yet Maths textbooks do! 😂

“No one” in this context meant “no one who actually does maths professionally.”

In a Maths textbook

Right, and I have decades of maths experience outside of textbooks. So it’s probably been 20 years since I had a meaningful interaction with the × multiplication symbol.

You don’t know that the obelus means divide??

I clearly know what the symbol means, I demonstrated a use of it. But again, haven’t had a meaningful interaction with the symbol in 20 years, and yet I deal with / for division daily.

When I see 1+½ i can instantly say “one and a half”, but when I see 1 + 1 ÷ 2 i actually have to pause for a moment to think about order of operations. Same with 1+2x vs 1 + 2 × x … one I recognize the structure of the problem immediately, and one feels foreign.

The point is that people who do maths for a living, and are probably above average in maths, tend to write things differently than people who are stopped their maths education in high school (or lower), and these types of memes are designed around making people who know high school maths feel smart. People who actually know maths don’t need memes to justify being better at maths than the rest of the public.

Most actual math people never have to think about pemdas here because no one would ever write a problem like this. The trick here is “when was the last time I saw an X to mean multiplication” so I would already be off about it

1 + 1/2 in my brain is clearly 1.5, but 1+1÷2 doesn’t even register in my brain properly.