Even if we grant that some hypothetical reaction may pull matter out of the air that's still 5 total grams when you include whatever nitrogen or whatever gets sucked in. That is not even to say, of course, that such a reaction exists in the first place.
-
-
I can't believe this argument is actually still going on! This is a good tweet though.
-
No, it's utterly delusional
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Rounding errors don't alter the underlying fundamental math. 2.49+2.49 =4.98 still
-
Yeah but because you can't see at that level of precision you don't know what those numbers are
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Would it be accurate to say that is type of rounding/imprecision is more relevant to measuring the “amount” of something than counting the “number” of things, or objects?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thank you, I didn't know what "mantissa" meant until just now when I looked it up. Maybe these guys don't know how to look up words?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
That would make it "~2+~2=~5". Our lack of knowledge about the source of the underlying values doesn't make the statement "2+2=5" correct. 2+2=4 and nothing else.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This gave me flashbacks to HS chemistry class and that deserves a follow good sir
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.