If you want to be pedantic and call someone out, atleast make sure you’re correct… there’s one rule, not two, the first isn’t 5x while the others are 3x +2.
This isn’t a hard concept to understand, but it is incredibly ironic you called someone else out first and are still making this same folly….
Or let me explain it this way, you said they failed their math assignment, do you know of any assignment that would be marked correct by using two different rules to explain a singular ruled equation……?
It has one equation, and substituting another, one that’s only “correct” for a single very specific case for that matter…. Will always be marked wrong/incorrect.
The first part, there’s not two rules, the first isn’t 5x… that would be marked incorrect on an assignment….
How is this so hard for you to understand? You seem to have wanted to call out OP for being off by 2, while you’re just using the wrong equation to begin with.
You’ve failed your math assignment, there isn’t two rules, do I need to repeat this 5x before you comprehend or something…?
Nothing I have said is untrue. You’re just being a pedantic asshole.
Like you in your first comment…? Lmfao. You aren’t the quickest one are you?
You explicitly stated two equations, not “the rule” thats the issue dude… come on haha how can you say it’s “the rule” and provide two different ones…? That would be wrong on any test/assignment.
You are being pedantic, and I saw that you made a folly that would be marked wrong on any assignment, so I was playfully calling you out.
And then you went and made an idiot out of yourself :)
Taking a triangle and making it into a tri-force = 5 times as many triangles, not 3.
Correct. 1 * 5 = 5. Which is also equivalent to 1*3+2, though simpler.
Then taking that and making it into further ti-forces is x3+2
Correct.
You’ve failed your math assignment.
Correct. The above image is not 3x as many triangles as the previous post.
So once again, which part of this is wrong?
What a fucked up way to explain a simple thing, while making yourself wrong at the same time…
Just because I typed it differently than you would have doesn’t make the math suddenly wrong. I never said I was defining rules. Nor trying to narrow them down to a single rule. That was entirely your initiative.
I was simply showing how far away from “x3” it was; which in the first instance “x5” illustrates that point better.
The second triangle is 5 on account of the black triangle on the inside and the compound triangle made up of all three smaller triangles and the fourth negative space triangle. I believe the formula for how many triangles is linear because each iteration of the fractal can be represented as scooping more negative space triangles from the existing set of triangles. Each iteration you scoop out the same number of black triangles as you had white triangles the previous iteration, creating two more white triangles for every white triangle you had before, and adding one more compound triangle.
The numbers we see though from each early iteration are as follows:
The rule is 3x +2
The first isn’t 5x, it still follows the same rule.
I never said they did, I was explaining how the rule would apply to anything, the first iteration is never 5x…
What a fucked up way to explain a simple thing, while making yourself wrong at the same time… while attempting to call someone else out… yikes…
Here, maybe some pictures will get it through your thick skull.
One triangle:
Five triangles:
A triangle made into a tri-force equals five times as many triangles.
From there, it becomes x3+2 (Ie: what my original comment, which you failed to read, said.)
1 -> 5 -> 17
Huh, the second still follows the rule of 3x +2…
Why are you incorrectly saying it’s 5x?
If you want to be pedantic and call someone out, atleast make sure you’re correct… there’s one rule, not two, the first isn’t 5x while the others are 3x +2.
This isn’t a hard concept to understand, but it is incredibly ironic you called someone else out first and are still making this same folly….
Or let me explain it this way, you said they failed their math assignment, do you know of any assignment that would be marked correct by using two different rules to explain a singular ruled equation……?
Which part of this statement is incorrect?
At no point have I said further equations are also x5, only the original; 1*5=5.
AGAIN try actually reading the comments you reply to.
1×3+2 = 5
Sure you could claim it’s 5x, but why do that when the other rule you have already works?
Because that was a simpler equation to read and equate to x3.
1x3+2 = 5 = 1*5. They are equivalent.
Equivalent doesn’t mean correct.
It has one equation, and substituting another, one that’s only “correct” for a single very specific case for that matter…. Will always be marked wrong/incorrect.
You’ve failed your math assignment.
TF are you talking about?
OP had an assignment: post 3x as many triangles.
I never had any assignment, I simply posted a couple equations illustrating how that has not happened.
Stating what singular equation covers every case is entirely your prerogative.
You claim they are off by a factor of 2x (5x instead of 3x) while they are only off by a paltry 2 units.
I’m calling out your calling out, and it’s hilarious that you still can’t comprehend this.
If you want to correct someone, do it right lmfao.
You’ve failed your math assignment.
The first part, there’s not two rules, the first isn’t 5x… that would be marked incorrect on an assignment….
How is this so hard for you to understand? You seem to have wanted to call out OP for being off by 2, while you’re just using the wrong equation to begin with.
You’ve failed your math assignment, there isn’t two rules, do I need to repeat this 5x before you comprehend or something…?
I said ONE triangle turned into a triforce is 5 times as many triangles as you started with.
Regardless of which equation you use, that is true. Your really that pissed off I showed the simpler equation for a single instance??
I explicitly stated the rule for following equations; to show, regardless, that it’s incorrect.
Nothing I have said is untrue. You’re just being a pedantic asshole.
Like you in your first comment…? Lmfao. You aren’t the quickest one are you?
You explicitly stated two equations, not “the rule” thats the issue dude… come on haha how can you say it’s “the rule” and provide two different ones…? That would be wrong on any test/assignment.
You are being pedantic, and I saw that you made a folly that would be marked wrong on any assignment, so I was playfully calling you out.
And then you went and made an idiot out of yourself :)
Correct. 1 * 5 = 5. Which is also equivalent to 1*3+2, though simpler.
Correct.
Correct. The above image is not 3x as many triangles as the previous post.
So once again, which part of this is wrong?
Just because I typed it differently than you would have doesn’t make the math suddenly wrong. I never said I was defining rules. Nor trying to narrow them down to a single rule. That was entirely your initiative.
I was simply showing how far away from “x3” it was; which in the first instance “x5” illustrates that point better.
Saying they are off by a factor of 2x is way to make something seem worse than it actually is, it’s off by 2 units… not 2 factors…
I’m sorry you can’t explain things properly, and make them more complicated than they have to be, while making yourself wrong at the same time…
If the first is only 1 triangle, I can’t see how the second would be anything but 3 triangles.
Three small white triangles, one black triangle and one large multicoloured triangle, I think.
The second triangle is 5 on account of the black triangle on the inside and the compound triangle made up of all three smaller triangles and the fourth negative space triangle. I believe the formula for how many triangles is linear because each iteration of the fractal can be represented as scooping more negative space triangles from the existing set of triangles. Each iteration you scoop out the same number of black triangles as you had white triangles the previous iteration, creating two more white triangles for every white triangle you had before, and adding one more compound triangle.
The numbers we see though from each early iteration are as follows:
1 -> 5 -> 17 -> 53 -> 161
Which happens to conform with 3(n-1)+2
If you’re counting black triangles, the first is 3.