• 0 Posts
  • 38 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 22nd, 2023

help-circle

  • force@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzI just cited myself.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Lol what? How did you conclude that if 9x = 5 then x = 1? Surely you didn’t pass algebra in high school, otherwise you could see that getting x from 9x = 5 requires dividing both sides by 9, which yields x = 5/9, i.e. 0.555... = 5/9 since x = 0.555....

    Also, you shouldn’t just use uppercase X in place of lowercase x or vice versa. Case is usually significant for variable names.


  • force@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzI just cited myself.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Pi isn’t a fraction (in the sense of a rational fraction, an algebraic fraction where the numerator and denominator are both polynomials, like a ratio of 2 integers) – it’s an irrational number, i.e. a number with no fractional form; as opposed to rational numbers, which are defined as being able to be expressed as a fraction. Furthermore, π is a transcendental number, meaning it’s never a solution to f(x) = 0, where f(x) is a non-zero finite-degree polynomial expression with rational coefficients. That’s like, literally part of the definition. They cannot be compared to rational numbers like fractions.

    Every rational number (and therefore every fraction) can be expressed using either repeating decimals or terminating decimals. Contrastly, irrational numbers only have decimal expansions which are both non-repeating and non-terminating.

    Since |r|<1 → ∑[n=1, ∞] arⁿ = ar/(1-r), and 0.999... is equivalent to that sum with a = 9 and r = 1/10 (visually, 0.999... = 9(0.1) + 9(0.01) + 9(0.001) + ...), it’s easy to see after plugging in, 0.999... = [n=1, ] 9(1/10)ⁿ = 9(1/10) / (1 - 1/10) = 0.9/0.9 = 1). This was a proof present in Euler’s Elements of Algebra.





  • Fetuses aren’t living and don’t breathe. They can’t live on their own and all their chemicals come from another human being (via the umbilical cord). This is opposed to the tree, which isn’t reliant on a certain being and instead gets its nutrients by itself through its roots and get oxygen for respiration & carbon dioxide for photosynthesis by itself, not an umbilical cord.

    Trees are undeniably far more independent and living than a fetus. You’re kind of a weirdo for thinking some random small clump of cells is actually equivalent to a human child. I bet I could find basically the same thing in my back yard if I looked hard enough.




  • force@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzgeoengineering
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think it speaks to how little nuance people are willing to tolerate before they throw a person in the “on my side” or “not on my side” category. And it speaks to how little people actually know about the science behind the activism they’re apparently a part of.


  • force@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzgeoengineering
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    You’re not wrong at all, humans won’t go extinct. The alarming thing is all the other things which will go extinct or be reduced in number, and the change in water/soil/weather sources obviously. Biodiversity and not having your neighbourhood turned into a desert are pretty important things to like, not have life suck. Plus you know, having access to clean water… humans will keep growing in number (mainly in Africa, probably the opposite in the developed world and countries like China and India though), but in 50 years we’ll all be living like wartorn Syrian children*

    *I am not a climate scientist, nor do I have much actual knowledge on climate science, so I do not know which precise flavor of impoverished middle eastern we will become








  • force@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzthe internet
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 months ago

    this isn’t necessarily true. people who have more knowledge or reasoning generally have higher confidence in their abilities than those with less, although people with less knowledge tend to have a higher disparity between their confidence and their actual performance. people with more knowledge still think they know more than the people with less knowledge, even though despite the higher confidence they still underestimated themselves.