It doesn't even need to be that close to 2.5 2 1/3 pretty clearly rounds to two. And two lots of that clearly rounds to five.
-
-
-
Replying to @Gent_Sausage @arthur_affect
If you have a set of scales and you have a thing that shows on the scale that it weighs two, and another if that thing, that also shows on the scale that it weighs two, and you weigh both together you still see that it weighs five. That's the point.
38 replies 3 retweets 45 likes -
It is generally understood, although not necessarily accurately, that the number "2" means "2.000...", that is the number two with an infinite set of zeroes after the decimal.
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
(As an aside this is also exactly the same as a number one with an infinite sequence of nines after the decimal.)
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Not exactly.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JustCanadian7 @phyphor and
Yes, exactly. 1.99999999999999... means the limit of the series 1+0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+...., which is 2.
3 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
-
Replying to @JustCanadian7 @IMJackRudd and
Well this is ironic I mean, sure, no one can force you to accept this as true if you don't want to -- that's the whole point of this conversation! Everyone has their own idiosyncratic language about numbers they use on their head to understand the world and that's fine!
2 replies 2 retweets 16 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @alongdongsilver @JustCanadian7 and
Usually when my followers pile on they say cool things I didn't know (or didn't remember) about math and stuff Your guys mostly have gifs
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes - Show replies
-
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.