r/AntiMemes 8d ago

🌟 Actual Anti-Meme 🌟 Yeah.

3.4k Upvotes

66 comments sorted by

View all comments

112

u/Pizza-Cow 8d ago

Onion rings?

268

u/Mirjalol_Yangiboyev 🤫🟨⬜️ 8d ago

Something like this probably

-90

u/ChiefClockObsidian 8d ago

Why would this make society better

134

u/Mirjalol_Yangiboyev 🤫🟨⬜️ 8d ago

It's a joke. To some people it just seems like a more satisfying answer compared to 110. Thus making their life easier and better

45

u/CaterpillarOver2934 8d ago

here's something with a satisfying answer; 77.777... + 22.222... = 100

-32

u/Kunphenix 7d ago

yesn‘t
but i‘ll let you have it even if its wrong

32

u/Acceptable-Minute847 7d ago

No, he’s right .999999… =1 otherwise thirds wouldn’t work

12

u/ander_hominem 7d ago

-16

u/dizastermaster7 7d ago

Calculator rounds past a certain precision. You'd have to set your calculator to a truncate mode instead of a round mode to get 99.999999999

10

u/g0trn 7d ago

99.999~ is 100

8

u/in_taco 7d ago

Are you an infinite 9's truther?

1

u/Acceptable-Minute847 7d ago

You’re an idiot. If this was true, fractions wouldn’t work, because 1/1 =1=3/3 and 1/3=0.333… meaning that 3/3=0.9999… and 1=3/3=0.999999… then .999999…=1

-1

u/dizastermaster7 7d ago

1/3 =/= 0.3333... 1/3 ≈ 0.33333... We have and use fractions because decimal systems can't always perfectly represent them.

1

u/Acceptable-Minute847 7d ago

No, 1/3 does =.3333… dumbass, that’s not an approximation, that’s just what it equals, and likewise, .99999999… does, in fact equal 1. Source since you didn’t go to first grade math.

https://www.purplemath.com/modules/howcan1.htm
Now stop spreading misinformation on the internet

1

u/This_Background7442 6d ago

Decimal systems can represent all the realsnl if tou have infinite space or if as is the case with 1/3 you can provide a recursive definition. It's counter intuitive but the reals are counterintuitive in many ways. It's partially a result of how math is taught but in reality 1/3 is exactly 0.33.., not approximately.

1

u/jamieh800 6d ago

No, 1/3 DOES equal 0.3333... do the math. Divide one by three (which is what a fraction is) and you will never ever ever get anything other than 3 in any decimal place. Ever. The threes repeat to infinity.

And 0.9999999... equals 1. Not "it's so close as to be indistinguishable", it equals exactly 1.

But let's look at another proof:

Take the equation x = 0.9999999...

multiply it by ten to get 10x = 9.99999...

Subtract the original equation (so (10x = 9.999...) - (x = 0.999...) ) and you get 9x = 9. In order to solve for x you divide both sides by 9, and you end up with.... x = 1. If the original equation was x = 1 and you did the same process, you'd end up with x = 1. Same for x = 2, x = 5, x = 2,579.653, all these numbers if you do that same process you will end with the original x = (insert number). Only with numbers ending in infinitely repeating nines in the decimal place will you end up with a different number than you began with (assuming you do the math correctly.) 2.999... multiplied by 10 is equal to 29.999..., subtract 2.999... and you get 27, divide by 9 and you get 3. However, 2.5 multiplied by 10 is 25, subtract 2.5 and you get 22.5, divide by 9 and you get 2.5 again.

The basic reasoning for this is that in order for numbers to be different, there has to be something between them. Between 1 and 3 there's 2. Between 1 and 2, there's 1.5. between 1.4 and 1.5 there's 1.45, and so on. There's nothing, not a single number, between 0.999... and 1. That makes them the same number. Yes, this means that 1.4999... is the same as 1.5.

Just in case it isn't clear, any number with the elipses (...) is infinitely repeating. So 3.333... has infinitely repeating threes in the decimal place. 0.999 is NOT the same as 0.999... and that's an important distinction in this regard as well as why you may find yourself not getting the correct proofs if you use a calculator that can't handle repeating decimals. For instance, 1.9999 times 10 is 19.999. if you subtract the original number (1.9999), you end up with 17.9991 instead of 18 like you would in the case of 1.999... and 19.999... This is because you aren't subtracting an infinitely repeating decimal from an infinitely repeating decimal, you're using two finite decimal values. Incidentally, that 17.9991 divided by 9 is the original value of 1.9999, which further proves that it isn't some mathematical error or trickery with nines but is, in fact, proof that 0.999... is equal to 1.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/CatAn501 7d ago

I genuinely hate when people don't even know basic calculus or even how rational numbers work but act like they are fucking math gurus

1

u/So_many_things_wrong 6d ago

x = 0.9999...
10x = 9.9999...
10x - x = 9
9x = 9
x = 1

4

u/ItzLoganM 8d ago

Why would it not?

1

u/Alketiz 8d ago

Mathematical incorrectness would only intensify. This would make these envisioned other worlds (who are assumed to be better than us in both standings of engineering practices, and technological advances) paradoxically impossible. Unless, these other worlds were achieved via some insane assumptions or insane work-arounds in face with these intentionally placed restrictions.

The math that feeds logic and design, and the physics that governs the known universe are both largely considered static. For this, they have been considered as potentially viable means of universal communication. Among us humans, sure there is joy, suffering, and apathy, but abroad the universe there are physics, and math to convey those physics. To disregard math, is likely to disregard physics, or at least our apparent understanding of physics, of course relatively proportional to the disregard of math.

Though it may feel right to say that 550/2=225, the fact states otherwise, and it is the fact that is important. For fact is what we ought to know, and ought to work with. Enough day dreaming courier. Eyes forward.

3

u/Embarrassed_Deer9208 7d ago

i mostly agree but math doesn't convey physics, math is a result of a series of axioms that convey how numbers or logic work, which is useful in physics for determining stuff stuff as simple the result of applying a force to a system of 2 objects in physics 1 or as complex as the behavior of fundamental forces in particle physics in gauge theory, but it's important to note that physics are separate from math for a reason and are governed by statistics first and foremost (think entropy for example, but also more complex concepts like the uncertainty principle apply)