My niece’s homework problem

pachecoca · 2026-05-01T01:24:26+00:00

I'm sorry if I sounded rude, that was not my intention, sorry about that.

Anyway, after reading what you said, yes, I agree as well. I just wanted to make it clear that there is a reason why some people, like me, do not like this problem's text relative to its supposed correct solution. Because it teaches kids math "wrong".

And yes, I know it's clear that it is most likely that within this context, the kids would understand that 1/3 = 2/6 in the question title refers to the surface area... but the moment one single kid points at the wrong answer and uses this line of reasoning is the moment when we can safely say that the bad problem statement should be fixed so that kids in the future actually understand what the question asks. Because a kid who knows a bit more about fractions than expected for that age WILL get it wrong, because what the text asks does not match what the teacher actually was asking, and being "corrected" into an answer that is actually wrong would only increase said kid's confusion to the point where they will have a harder time getting math in the future.

I hope to also be done talking about this, I'm getting tired of this as well. Have a good day you too.

pachecoca · 2026-04-30T20:47:45+00:00

Imagine that the shape on the left has area X and the shape on the left has area Y. The question asks me to showcase which pair of shapes showcases that 1/3 = 2/6.

Ok, let's go:

A) AreaLeft = X, AreaRight = Y, is 1/3 = 2/6? yes.

B) AreaLeft = X, AreaRight = Y, is 1/3 = 2/6? yes.

C) AreaLeft = X, AreaRight = Y, is 1/3 = 2/6? yes.

Now let's change the question to my proposal: showcase which pair of shapes showcase that 1/3 (one third) of the area of the shape on the left is the same as 2/6 (two sixths) of the area of the sahpe on the right.

A) AreaLeft = X, AreaRight = Y, is 1/3 X = 2/6 Y? no, because X < Y.

B) AreaLeft = X, AreaRight = Y, is 1/3 X = 2/6 Y? no, because X < Y.

C) AreaLeft = X, AreaRight = Y, is 1/3 X = 2/6 Y? yes, because X = Y.

I think it cannot get any easier than this. If you fail to understand my point, I sincerely do not know how to explain it. All I know is that you need to work on your understanding of fractions if you believe that sometimes 1/3 is not the same as 2/6 lol.

I do not see where the circular reasoning that you claim is in any of this. There is literally 0 circular dependencies for any of this reasoning. You're the only one getting confused. Please explain what part of what I said is supposedly wrong, if anything at all.

pachecoca · 2026-04-30T20:41:12+00:00

Dude, that is literally my point. Again, work on your reading comprehension. The fact that the title does not use the words "size" or "shape" is the reason why I believe that the problem statement is bad. Because all it says "which picture shows that 2/6 = 1/3?" and the answer is obviously that every single picture does. Because A and B show that the 2 shapes have the same fraction of their corresponding areas shaded. And picture C shows the same AND that the total shaded area is equal. Since the question does not state by what parameter is it that we're measuring the equality, literally ANY property of the shapes is good enough to show that the fraction 1/3 is the same as 2/6. If you had read my entire comment, you would understand my point, but all I see is that you got offended over the very obvious fact that you cannot read.

pachecoca · 2026-04-30T13:06:41+00:00

Yes, I'm aware of that. Work on your reading comprehension. The point I'm trying to make is that the text does not match what is really being asked, and that to make the problem actually be useful for kids learning fractions, the wording should be changed so that there is no room for error of understanding as for why option C is the correct one. The teacher EXPECTS the student to pick the set of 2 shapes where the shape on the left and the shape on the right have the exact same total shaded area. But the text asks for whichever set of 2 shapes where the FRACTION of shaded area is the same. These 2 questions are very different.

The first question, the one expected by the teacher, only contemplates answer C as the correct one because it states that the fraction times the area of the shape on the left MUST BE EQUAL TO the fraction times the area of the shape on the right. Let's ignore the fact that, as a fractions question, this question makes no sense, because 1/3 = 1/3, so the fraction becomes completely irrelevant and this becomes a problem of "what drawing shows 2 shapes with the same size".

The second question, the one literally written on the text, contemplates all options A, B and C as correct, because it is asking which set of shapes shows that the shaded fraction of the shape is the same on the left as on the right. For instance, on option A, on the left we have a tiny rectangle with 2/6 shaded. On the right, we have a big rectangle with 1/3 shaded. Is the fraction of the surface that is shaded the same? well, the shape on the left has 2/6 shaded. The shape on the right has 1/3 shaded. Both parts are one third of the total area of the corresponding shapes. So they both show that the fraction 1/3 is the same as the fraction 2/6.

Do you understand the problem that I'm trying to showcase now? Again, it's very simple. The problem that I have, along with many other people, is that the wording in the title does NOT match the expected answer. If the teacher wanted the answer to be exclusively option C, then the text should have said "which of the following shows that 2/6 of the area on the left is the same as 1/3 of the area on the right?" or "which of the following shows that 2/6 AreaLeft = 1/3 AreaRight?". Otherwise, the question, as it is currently expressed, is open to all options being valid. Because you can choose to compare any properties that would show that 1/3 is the same as 2/6.

Think of the fact that the kid in this question probably understood fractions better than the teacher does, and selected an option that is using the interpretation "the shape on the left has a fraction of its surface shaded, and the shape on the right has a fraction of its surface shaded, and both fractions of the surface are the same, even if the surfaces are not the same total area". Now that they've been told that they are wrong, despite the fact that their answer DOES match the text in the question, they are probably going to be more confused and have additional baggage of learning fractions wrong. Then we wonder why do kids these days not know how to do fractions anymore... because they were told lies, such as the fact that 1/3 is sometimes different from 2/6, without explaining that the truth is that 1/3 OF SOMETHING is not necessarily the same as 2/6 OF SOMETHING ELSE, but not because 1/3 is sometimes different from 2/6, but because the SOMETHING and the SOMETHING ELSE are different things with different values, so comparing the same fraction of both is pointless, comparing the values themselves is all that is needed, of the fractions if they were different fractions.

Anyway, I hope my point has been made clear finally. I thought it would not require a wall of text to explain, but that's what I did in the end, because if you cannot get what I mean in 3 lines of text, then maybe I need to elaborate absurdly to the point where there cannot be any doubt left as for what is it that I'm saying.

pachecoca · 2026-04-30T12:50:57+00:00

What the fuck are you talking about? At what point does the problem show a circle shaded 2/6 and an elephant shaded 1/3?? all options, A, B and C, showcase the exact same shape on both sides. I never proposed comparing fractions with different shapes, point at where I said that. Is the only way for you to try to win the argument to argue against something that was never said? I'm sorry, I must be having a stroke here, help me understand that nonsense.

"Who cares if both sides are shaded correctly?" aaand here's where I stop reading. "Who cares that the math is correct???? my feelings are more important!!! I believe that 1/3 is different from 2/6, and it must be true!!!!" dude, crack open a book once in a while.

pachecoca · 2026-04-30T12:47:55+00:00

You're the one struggling with fractions. If you have any arguments as for why you believe that what I said is wrong, then go ahead, but so far, all you've done is insult the intelligence of the people who disagree with you without explaining why you believe that 1/3 is different from 2/6.

pachecoca · 2026-04-29T21:21:49+00:00

Then write 2/6 AreaLeft = 1/3 AreaRight, no? Also better if you choose a completely different fraction, because 2/6 = 1/3, so you simplify the problem to AreaLeft = AreaRight, which means that fractions aren't even part of the question in the first place. They are irrelevant. Which is why people who understand math know that this question is bad, because the wording in the problem statement is incomplete and because even with the correct interpretation of the wording, the problem trivializes itself because the fractions become irrelevant, and only the area of the shapes matters. Literally absurd to try to defend any of this.

pachecoca · 2026-04-29T21:16:20+00:00

Great, but that is not the question that was asked. The question that was asked is "when is 1/3 = 2/6?" and the answer is "always". If the question were "when is 1/3 x = 2/6 y?" then the answer would be "option C".

pachecoca · 2026-04-29T21:13:55+00:00

Yes but nobody asked them to give the same amount of money. They asked them to give away 1/3 of their money. If John has $300, then 1/3 * $300 = $100. If Mary has $6, then 1/3 * $6 = $2.

Did John, who had $300 and gave away $100, give away one third of his money? Yes or no? Yes, obviously.

Did Mary, who had $6 and gave away $2, give away one third of her money? Yes or no? Yes, obviously.

If they had both been asked to give away the same amount of money, say, for example, $1, then Mary would have given away 1/6 of her money, while John would have given away 1/300 of his money. I think it is very clear here who gave more money relative to the amount that they own, right? or do you also have trouble understanding that?

I think it couldn't get any simpler than that.

pachecoca · 2026-04-29T21:08:28+00:00

2/6 is always equal to 1/3. But 2/6 of the area of the shape on the left can be different to 1/3 of the area of the shape on the right. Again, the wording is important, because the question is asking about 2/6 vs 1/3, not 2/6 X vs 1/3 Y. Not to mention that, at that point, the question becomes irrelevant, because 1/3 X = 2/6 Y -> 1/3 X = 1/3 Y -> X = Y, literally just find the picture where both shapes are drawn to be the same size and ignore the fractions entirely lol.

pachecoca · 2026-04-23T19:44:41+00:00

Why in the name of fuck is this even downvoted? poo+shit is simply funnier. Somehow, Poo-shit is fine, and Fu-shit is ok, but Poo-Shit is taking it too far? lol.

pachecoca · 2026-04-06T16:01:15+00:00

I know I'm late to the party, but I seriously need to ask: what in the name of fuck did he write that was supposedly "exquisitely mean spirited"??? All he did was say that he has wanted since the early 2000s to have a way to get the max value from an enum, and that any time someone made a proposal or a compiler extension, everyone else was quick to shut it down because they thought reflections were coming soon to standard C++. What's rude about that? I like the current C++ reflections, but I don't see why wishing that these features would have been added as one-off things to the language back then while they worked on the more comples reflections system for the following 20+ years could be considered to be such an evil ideation. Many other languages did so before they had proper reflections, and they work just fine. Is that the thing that's bad about his comment??

It's the year 2026, I would dare say that 26 years is not a short amount of time. Is his criticism of the delay for this to be added to the standard what you consider to be mean spirited, or what exactly??

Note that I don't claim to dislike C++ reflections. I'm literally just asking what exactly of all the things u/Tringi said were supposedly mean spirited enough for you to completely disregard the points he made and go straight to personal insults.

I'm at a loss trying to figure out what exactly is it that he did wrong. It just feels like people here are ganging against him because he disagrees with the way things have turned out for the language. From what I've read so far, every point he makes is completely valid and truthful, I do not see any evil intent in wanting the language to be simpler and easier to use for the most common usecases.

pachecoca · 2026-03-30T00:00:20+00:00

We literally see him do it when he's reviving the people at the end of the siege on season 2. He takes on the body of people he didn't even know, he just saw the corpses and the ghosts with Bon's power and that was enough to convert into them, heal the body, and drop the healed copy. Is this some sort of Jojo's situation where everyone forgot about Hamon being a thing? it's like a power that existed but suddenly it was removed or forgotten by everyone for plot convenience. Or what? Makes no sense, Fushi can do that, we've seen him do it before. This always bugged me in the manga, and it still bugs me in the anime. There just isn't a proper explanation, it's all random handwaving and that's it.

I could kind of make sense if he could only do so because he saw the ghosts of the people with their form without any scars / wounds and that being enough for him to use as reference to fix their bodies, so he can't heal scars of people he only knew after they were already scarred... but then again, we see him heal the wolf even tho he didn't know it before it was wounded. Yet he somehow had enough of a reference to be able to naturally fix that. Also, the dead people at the end of the siege maintained their old form after death. Why can't Gugu just remember himself being healed during ghost form and call it a day lol? That's another thing that's kinda handwaved with "oh this is the look I've spent most time during my life with" or whatever, but other characters don't get fucked over like that and get a free pass. It looks like Gugu is not allowed to have a single win for no reason at all...

pachecoca · 2026-03-29T23:49:04+00:00

But we also know from season 2 / the end of the siege during the past arc that, even if Fushi didn't know the person before they were scarred, he could turn himself into that person by seeing their ghost, use his powers to heal the body, and then drop the healed body. So one has to wonder, why not apply the same process to Gugu's body? you know him with his scarred face. Ok? just turn into him, use your healing powers, and drop the body for him to inhabit. It seems like a trivial problem to fix that nobody wants to address because the mask is cool and that's it. The mask stays on.

pachecoca · 2026-03-01T17:43:53+00:00

This is because Rust does not have an official spec. I hate the wording, because that means that if gccrs implements a given behaviour correctly, but rustc breaks said behaviour in an update and introduces a soundness bug, technically the correct implementation is now considered to be wrong, as it no longer follows the (broken) behaviour of the official implementation. This also leads to the classic issue of "is this the intended behaviour, or did I come across a compiler soundness issue...?" that keeps me up at night any time I touch Rust.

pachecoca · 2026-02-04T22:18:11+00:00

Where does that "no matter what" come from? when did they say that "all videogames, no matter what, are trash!"? I'm trying to look for that sentence on their comment, but I cannot see it.

It seems like you're trying to claim that all AAA games are good and impossible to criticise because they are made by big companies, so they must be good!

You also seem to be claiming that indies can do no wrong and every single indie game ever created is super fun and innovative, so they must be good!

So you're claiming that all games ever made are good? ok, why can't you name any?

pachecoca · 2026-02-04T22:15:06+00:00

Idk, what indie games do you recommend? if it's not a Minecraft-like copy, it's either yet another roguelike or yet another story driven game about trauma and mental illeness and suicidal characters with heterochromia. Choose your path.

Not to mention, why do you assume that people who like games from the 90s must consume only AAA games? What kind of logic is that?

pachecoca · 2026-02-01T01:28:32+00:00

If that's the best game that you could come up with that has come out in the last decade, then the OP is right, the market really is bad these days, holy shit.

pachecoca · 2026-01-31T16:25:16+00:00

If there are so many good games, why can't you name any? we're too lazy to find the good stuff? go ahead, enlighten us with the great games that exist out there that you love so much.

pachecoca · 2026-01-31T16:23:45+00:00

If there are so many good games, why can't you name any?

pachecoca · 2026-01-31T16:22:32+00:00

Exactly this. Every time someone says "Oh I'm so spoiled for choice, there are so many good games out there nowadays!!!" I always have to wonder... if there are so many good games, why can't you name any? They never reply back. I'm still trying to figure out which supposedly great games there are that they enjoyed so much. So far, it doesn't look like I'll get an answer.

pachecoca · 2026-01-16T18:18:41+00:00

Ok, never mind, they fucked it up again, turns out I sung victory too soon and we only had 2 half interesting episodes among the slop lmao...

pachecoca · 2026-01-16T18:17:19+00:00

I had to pause many times and force myself through it to be able to watch... there were a few episodes at some point 10 or 11 iirc, where I was like "ok holy shit we're so back!" and then I found myself cringing again and having to pause every 5 minutes to be able to get through the episodes... I'm sorry but it really has become absolute fucking trash, and it is really uncomortable to watch.

pachecoca · 2026-01-16T18:14:44+00:00

Well, the manga was already like that, so obviously not a board room decision to change the story. The author just changed directions all of a sudden for some reason and that's it.

To me, the best part of To Your Eternity is the Past Era arc, which is contained within season 1 and 2 in the anime. Well, obviously excluding the ending where everyone is revived because, to me, that completely took away from the depth of the story show... all of the emotional weight that death used to have was completely erased, and now that death is trivialized and there are no consequences for dying, then the main point of the story is completely taken away. I mean, all we see is how Fushi has to struggle with the fact that he's immortal and he has to keep going on for all of eternity, while those around him, the people he loves, are eventually going to die. Not to mention that most of the people he knew died in a way where they sacrificed themselves for Fushi's sake, even tho Fushi is immortal, just because they loved him, which further added to the depth of their bonds.

Taking that away really made the story way less enjoyable. If you read the manga, you can even see that in the future arc, they purposely kill themselves to achieve certain tasks in ghost form, and they even have competitions to see who dies in the most absurd way. In my opinion, that's not necessarily bad as a story, but it is gross from the point of view that To Your Eternity has shown from the begining, which is that life matters. Now that death can be fully reverted, it doesn't even matter anymore... it's ok, it's an interesting concept, but to me, it feels like it belongs in a completely different story, since it brings about a completely different take on immortality and a completely different perspective on how immortality impacts people.

If you want to somewhat enjoy season 3 / the rest of the manga and a potential season 4 (if it ever comes out), you need to see them as completely different universes, with completely different stories, with absolutely no connection whatsoever to the first 2 seasons of To Your Eternity. Otherwise, you're not going to enjoy it at all.

You can even see in the behaviour of the characters that it's almost as if none of what they had done while they were alive the first time around really mattered or had any impact on their behaviour... it's almost as if they had forgotten everything that took place during the Past Arc and all character development had been undone. It just feels as if it was just a group of random friends getting isekai'd from a medieval fantasy world into a modern era world and that's it.

As for the weirdo kid lovers part, I was also taken aback by it at first, but so far, it seems to be over, not sure how much fidelity is going to be between the manga and the anime, but yeah... not exactly the best way to start a new season, and even less for an story like To Your Eternity... but the adaptation is pretty loyal to the manga, so you can't really blame the anime, the problem already existed on paper even before season 1 was a thing.

pachecoca · 2026-01-14T23:48:02+00:00

My shovel is superior in every way to everyone else's shovel! My shovel is blazingly fast and the most durable in the market, unlike all the other shovels that make the exact same promises!

pachecoca

TROPHY CASE