@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 1 year agoI just cited myself.mander.xyzimagemessage-square238fedilinkarrow-up1859
arrow-up1859imageI just cited myself.mander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 1 year agomessage-square238fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish19•1 year agoThat’s the best explanation of this I’ve ever seen, thank you!
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish10•edit-21 year 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-21 year 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