@[email protected] to Lord of the [email protected]English • 1 year agoA million more well on the wayaussie.zoneimagemessage-square15fedilinkarrow-up1503arrow-down114 starcopymore-verticalflagCreate ReportslashBlock user
arrow-up1489arrow-down1imageA million more well on the wayaussie.zone@[email protected] to Lord of the [email protected]English • 1 year agomessage-square15fedilink starcopymore-verticalflagCreate ReportslashBlock user
minus-squareenkerslinkfedilinkEnglish18•edit-21 year ago therefore we cannot assume that 6001 is exactly half of the total. Correct, all we can deduce is the bounds: Let x be the number of spears hoped for. 6000 < x/2 < 6002 12000 < x < 12004 Edit: fixed error arrow-up119arrow-down11file-textreply1starmore-verticalmailMessageflagCreate ReportslashBlock user
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish12•1 year agoLess than half and more than half imply strict inequality, so 6000 < x/2 < 6002, so 12001 <= x <= 12003 arrow-up112arrow-down10file-textreply1starmore-verticalmailMessageflagCreate ReportslashBlock user
minus-squareenkerslinkfedilinkEnglish7•edit-21 year agoYou’re absolutely correct, it should be “<”. Since he wished for such an odd number, I wouldn’t constrain x to integers though. Maybe he wished for “more than twelve thousand spears”? arrow-up17arrow-down10file-textreply1starmore-verticalmailMessageflagCreate ReportslashBlock user
Correct, all we can deduce is the bounds:
Let x be the number of spears hoped for.
6000 < x/2 < 6002
12000 < x < 12004
Edit: fixed error
Less than half and more than half imply strict inequality, so 6000 < x/2 < 6002, so 12001 <= x <= 12003
You’re absolutely correct, it should be “<”. Since he wished for such an odd number, I wouldn’t constrain x to integers though. Maybe he wished for “more than twelve thousand spears”?