fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 5 months agoI just cited myself.mander.xyzimagemessage-square235fedilinkarrow-up1820arrow-down141
arrow-up1779arrow-down1imageI just cited myself.mander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 5 months agomessage-square235fedilink
minus-squareColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down12·5 months agoDo that same math, but use .5555… instead of .9999…
minus-squareBeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·5 months agoHave you tried it? You get 0.555… which kinda proves the point does it not?
minus-squareWandering_Uncertainty@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·5 months 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?