@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 5 months agoI just cited myself.mander.xyzimagemessage-square225fedilinkarrow-up1825arrow-down142cross-posted to: chonglangtv
arrow-up1783arrow-down1imageI just cited myself.mander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 5 months agomessage-square225fedilinkcross-posted to: chonglangtv
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish17•5 months agoThat’s the best explanation of this I’ve ever seen, thank you!
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish8•edit-25 months agoThat’s more convoluted than the 1/3, 2/3, 3/3 thing. 3/3 = 0.99999… 3/3 = 1 If somebody still wants to argue after that, don’t bother.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish6•edit-25 months agoNah that explanation is basically using an assumption to prove itself. You need to first prove that 1/3 does in fact equal .3333… which can be done using the ‘convoluted’ but not so convoluted proof
That’s the best explanation of this I’ve ever seen, thank you!
That’s more convoluted than the 1/3, 2/3, 3/3 thing.
3/3 = 0.99999…
3/3 = 1
If somebody still wants to argue after that, don’t bother.
Nah that explanation is basically using an assumption to prove itself. You need to first prove that 1/3 does in fact equal .3333… which can be done using the ‘convoluted’ but not so convoluted proof