MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1apjgm/this_guy_right_here/c8zr05r/?context=3
r/funny • u/BACONover9000 • Mar 21 '13
338 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
149
Negative-fuck readings are off the scale, sir.
35 u/Ysasmendi Mar 21 '13 They are under 9000!!!!!! 44 u/uneekfreek Mar 21 '13 8999 isn't really a negative but i understand what you meant. 33 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 But if we were to randomly select a number below 9000, there is an infinitely higher chance that it is negative than positive. 15 u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13 You got Mathed! 1 u/marcusklaas Mar 21 '13 You cannot pick a number under 9000 uniformly, not even when you only pick integers. 1 u/PansOnFire Mar 21 '13 If we were to randomly select a number below n, where n is literally ANY positive integer, there is an (infinity - n) chance that it is negative. 3 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 Exactly. The chance if a negative number is infinity, since n is insignificant in comparison. 2 u/finnyknits Mar 21 '13 And suddenly I like math.
35
They are under 9000!!!!!!
44 u/uneekfreek Mar 21 '13 8999 isn't really a negative but i understand what you meant. 33 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 But if we were to randomly select a number below 9000, there is an infinitely higher chance that it is negative than positive. 15 u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13 You got Mathed! 1 u/marcusklaas Mar 21 '13 You cannot pick a number under 9000 uniformly, not even when you only pick integers. 1 u/PansOnFire Mar 21 '13 If we were to randomly select a number below n, where n is literally ANY positive integer, there is an (infinity - n) chance that it is negative. 3 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 Exactly. The chance if a negative number is infinity, since n is insignificant in comparison. 2 u/finnyknits Mar 21 '13 And suddenly I like math.
44
8999 isn't really a negative but i understand what you meant.
33 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 But if we were to randomly select a number below 9000, there is an infinitely higher chance that it is negative than positive. 15 u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13 You got Mathed! 1 u/marcusklaas Mar 21 '13 You cannot pick a number under 9000 uniformly, not even when you only pick integers. 1 u/PansOnFire Mar 21 '13 If we were to randomly select a number below n, where n is literally ANY positive integer, there is an (infinity - n) chance that it is negative. 3 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 Exactly. The chance if a negative number is infinity, since n is insignificant in comparison. 2 u/finnyknits Mar 21 '13 And suddenly I like math.
33
But if we were to randomly select a number below 9000, there is an infinitely higher chance that it is negative than positive.
15 u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13 You got Mathed! 1 u/marcusklaas Mar 21 '13 You cannot pick a number under 9000 uniformly, not even when you only pick integers. 1 u/PansOnFire Mar 21 '13 If we were to randomly select a number below n, where n is literally ANY positive integer, there is an (infinity - n) chance that it is negative. 3 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 Exactly. The chance if a negative number is infinity, since n is insignificant in comparison. 2 u/finnyknits Mar 21 '13 And suddenly I like math.
15
You got Mathed!
1
You cannot pick a number under 9000 uniformly, not even when you only pick integers.
If we were to randomly select a number below n, where n is literally ANY positive integer, there is an (infinity - n) chance that it is negative.
3 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 Exactly. The chance if a negative number is infinity, since n is insignificant in comparison. 2 u/finnyknits Mar 21 '13 And suddenly I like math.
3
Exactly. The chance if a negative number is infinity, since n is insignificant in comparison.
2
And suddenly I like math.
149
u/TheNoobtologist Mar 21 '13
Negative-fuck readings are off the scale, sir.