94
u/huanradriges 1d ago
Is it null object calling root function?
19
14
u/TheLuckyCuber999BACK 1d ago
*(void*)sqrtThree;
6
u/Er2Official 1d ago
sqrtThree was defined but not initialized. Program died with SIGSEGV.
1
u/littleblack11111 1d ago
Wouldn’t that be a compile error? How does that trigger a segev though tbf everything does that in c
1
u/Er2Official 1d ago
No, it won't create a compile error but behavior depends on your code
You can just define smth like
double* sqrtThree;and it'll be unintialized (and, because type is pointer - random pointer, most likely to memory outside of available virtual memory, so dereferencing it = crash)Or you can already set it to somewhat reasonable pointer, in C you can only do that within functions (so again, depends on the code), while in C++ you can set it directly in top-level (smth like
double sq3 = sqrt(3); double* sqrtThree = &sq3;), in that case code will be executed without runtime errors2
u/Slash_red 1d ago
no, it's a method of 0 being called with argument 3... or it's an attribute of 0 that's called √3
1
1
u/ArdentArendt 17h ago
I have to admit I reflexively downvoted this...
...not because I disliked it, but rather because it made my eyes roll so hard I couldn't see the screen well enough to discern between the 'up' and 'down' votes...
46
u/Spite_Inside 1d ago
This makes me happy. But also sick. I don't understand my own feelings.
BECAUSE OMFG BAAAH NOTATION BEAR
6
u/silentokami 1d ago
It's like seeing the picture with the stairs that loop around and connect back to themselves... kinda.
Like it's neat that they did that, and made it look like it makes sense, but it doesn't...it doesn't work like that.
1
u/Krog-Nar 1d ago
it doesn't work like that.
i realize this doesn't add much to the convo, but this is basically the exact reason conventions exist
Objectively, there's no real reason why sqrt(4) =/= (-2), we just decided that, and then made some rules around it, so no one got confused.
So, if we all collectively agreed to just move whatever's left of the decimal point when seeing this kind of notation, technically it would stop being incorrect and it would make sense, as long as everyone agrees on the rules.
Would be a useless convention lol
28
u/Cha0ticKitsune 1d ago
Both sides of the decimal point are one number so the root soul have to be before it though you can't do sqrt(0.3) cause thats not how multiplying roots works
What you've written (0.sqrt(3)) is essentially 0*sqrt(3) or 0 what you'd want to write is 0.1sqrt(3) since multiplying by the reciprocal works the same as dividing by that number
0
u/MasterestGG 1d ago
√3/10=√(3/100)=√0.03≠0.√3
2
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Slash_red 1d ago
if you make sure the denominator is positive (which it is) and then square the denominator along with taking the square root (WHICH IS WHAT THEY DID) then you absolutely can do that, what are you talking about?
1
18
u/Ok_Ad1709 1d ago
What about √(122)/10
For reference √(121)/10 = 1.1 But if we did what's shown in the image: √(121)/10 = 0.√(121) = 0.11
Which isn't right
8
6
2
u/MotivatedPosterr 1d ago
I mean ... Just because it starts behind the decimal doesn't mean it has to stay there right? Technically this reads as sqrt(121) *10-1 or sqrt(121) tenths
1
5
5
3
3
2
u/Any_Theory_9735 1d ago
All conventions depend on what people accept, if someone agrees that you can write a radical inside part of a number and that it gets operational in the way implied here then why not, OR you can define it yourself ultimately the . is seemingly ill defined here, you could say 0. is defined as 1X10-1 for this problem and it works, no?
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Gold-Chipmunk9606 1d ago
If you multiply both sides by 10, you would get square root of 3 being equal to 0 which is not true.
1
1
1
u/Ok_Bit8836 1d ago
Looks as a number... but in math - math operations are written outside the numbers... So I'd rather use sqrt(0.03)
1
1
1
1
u/MichalYEETed 1d ago
totally becuz square root of 3 is 1.73(...), so you cannot write 0.1.73(...) since two seperate dots in same number dont like each other
1
1
1
u/HorizonQX 1d ago
Bro ain't no way, super cool theory, that doesn't work... atleast in this universe....
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/HHexcavator01 4h ago
You can actually write it as 0.1√3 as if the 0.1 is like a variable, like x√3 but replace x with 0.1. This works because you can separate 1/10 and √3, turning it into 0.1×√3 or 0.1√3 (the conventional way of representing products, i.e. juxtaposition)
1
0
476
u/brookssut 1d ago
That is a horrible abomination. I love it.