@realitista@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world • 6 months agoNon-binarylemmy.worldimagemessage-square210fedilinkarrow-up11.42Karrow-down1107
arrow-up11.32Karrow-down1imageNon-binarylemmy.world@realitista@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world • 6 months agomessage-square210fedilink
minus-square@Verat@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilink8•edit-26 months agoIn that case decimal is flawed too, 0.6667 or any such approxination doesnt exactly equal 2/3. It technically happens in any number system where you are dividing by a prime that isnt part of either the base or the number being divided
minus-square@ZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink2•6 months agoCounterpoint 1: 0.6̇ (Unicode does not support numbers with overdots correctly) Counterpoint 2: 2/3
minus-square@NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilink4•6 months agoIt won’t work with irrational numbers, or transcendental numbers even if you allow things like √2. But honestly I have no idea what the point of this conversation even is
In that case decimal is flawed too, 0.6667 or any such approxination doesnt exactly equal 2/3. It technically happens in any number system where you are dividing by a prime that isnt part of either the base or the number being divided
Counterpoint 1:
0.6̇(Unicode does not support numbers with overdots correctly)Counterpoint 2:
2/3It won’t work with irrational numbers, or transcendental numbers even if you allow things like √2.
But honestly I have no idea what the point of this conversation even is
deleted by creator
deleted by creator