all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 54 points 2 years ago (3 children)

In binary the answer is good, which is fun

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 85 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In binary the one on the left is meaningless, and therefore the two cannot be compared. In any base in which they can be compared, the one on the left is smaller.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wouldn't that require the number of available digits to be 1/10?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    Fractional bases are weird, and I think there's even competing standards. What I was thinking is that you can write any number in base n like this:

    \sum_{k= -∞}^{∞} a_k * n^k

    where a_k are what we would call the digits of a number. To make this work (exists and is unique) for a given positive integer base, you need exactly n different symbols.

    For a base 1/n, turns out you also need n different symbols, using this definition. It's fairly easy to show that using 1/n just mirrors the number around the decimal point (e.g. 13.7 becomes 7.31)

    I am not very well versed in bases tho (unbased, even), so all of this could be wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Goddang liberals wanna take God out of school and replace him with gay math

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    Obviously he is correct because the smallest base that can represent 10 is base 2 and 10 in base 2 is equal to 2 in base 10. And the smallest base in which you can represent the number 3 is base 4 and 3 in base 10 in equal to 3 so 2 is the smaller number hence "10" is the smaller number. And from the drawing of the rainbow you can infer that he wants to use a diverse range of bases and not just the common base 10. Btw I am only talking about the natural bases (whole number positive).

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    I mean technically zero is not a number

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Zero is the absence of a number, or a placeholder, not a number 🤷‍♂️ there's been mathematicians arguing over this for years my dude

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    By some definitions, maybe. However, definitions that exclude it probably do so for a specific reason. It's more a fluke of categorization than a real world distinction. Those distinctions might be critical to certain logic systems, but even most people who use that definition recognize reality.

    Zero is a number in more cases than it isn't. It is a symbol that represents a value. Just like infinity, it doesn't matter if 0 doesn't exist in physical reality. It's still a useful value in most cases.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago

    flawless answer and arguments

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    i too am gay and can't do maths

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    What are you supposed to write there? I guess 3 < 10 is not the answer. It also requires text, so drawing 3 vs 10 of something isn't suitable, too. "You taught us" or what do they want to hear??

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    they never specified the order relation, so we can’t really know what they meant by smallest. for all we know, 10 could be the right answer

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    10 Skittles < 3 elephrants.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    They're out of line, but they're right

  • source