fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 year agoI just cited myself.mander.xyzimagemessage-square240fedilinkarrow-up1856arrow-down143
arrow-up1813arrow-down1imageI just cited myself.mander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square240fedilink
minus-squareColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down12·1 year agoDo that same math, but use .5555… instead of .9999…
minus-squareBeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·1 year agoHave you tried it? You get 0.555… which kinda proves the point does it not?
minus-squareWandering_Uncertainty@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·1 year ago??? Not sure what you’re aiming for. It proves that the setup works, I suppose. x = 0.555… 10x = 5.555… 10x = 5 + 0.555… 10x = 5+x 9x = 5 x = 5/9 5/9 = 0.555… So it shows that this approach will indeed provide a result for x that matches what x is supposed to be. Hopefully it helped?
Do that same math, but use .5555… instead of .9999…
Have you tried it? You get 0.555… which kinda proves the point does it not?
???
Not sure what you’re aiming for. It proves that the setup works, I suppose.
x = 0.555…
10x = 5.555…
10x = 5 + 0.555…
10x = 5+x
9x = 5
x = 5/9
5/9 = 0.555…
So it shows that this approach will indeed provide a result for x that matches what x is supposed to be.
Hopefully it helped?