fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 year agoI just cited myself.mander.xyzimagemessage-square27fedilinkarrow-up10arrow-down10
arrow-up10arrow-down1imageI just cited myself.mander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square27fedilink
minus-squarezarkanian@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoMy favorite thing about this argument is that not only are you right, but you can prove it with math.
minus-squareColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·1 year agoExcept it doesn’t. The math is wrong. Do the exact same formula, but use .5555… instead of .9999… Guess it turns out .5555… is also 1.
minus-squareWldFyre@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoLol you can’t do math apparently, take a logic course sometime Let x=0.555… 10x=5.555… 10x=5+x 9x=5 x=5/9=0.555…
minus-square💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·1 year ago you can prove it with math Not a proof, just wrong. In the “(substitute 0.9999… = x)” step, it was only done to one side, not both (the left side would’ve become 9.99999), therefore wrong.
My favorite thing about this argument is that not only are you right, but you can prove it with math.
Except it doesn’t. The math is wrong. Do the exact same formula, but use .5555… instead of .9999…
Guess it turns out .5555… is also 1.
Lol you can’t do math apparently, take a logic course sometime
Let x=0.555…
10x=5.555…
10x=5+x
9x=5
x=5/9=0.555…
Not a proof, just wrong. In the “(substitute 0.9999… = x)” step, it was only done to one side, not both (the left side would’ve become 9.99999), therefore wrong.