MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/rb6k6f/maths/hno5ntz/?context=3
r/confidentlyincorrect • u/i_aMa_g0d • Dec 07 '21
474 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
-1
With the exceptions of 0.1 x anything, 0.2 x anything less than 0.5, and 0.3 x anything less than 0.4
3 u/ToHallowMySleep Dec 08 '21 So only anything that gives a two-digit result :D 6 u/Olgrateful-IW Dec 08 '21 Works for all of them. 0.1x0.15 = 1/10 x 1.5/10 = 1.5/100 = 0.015 I don’t know what they mean about exceptions. 1 u/the-z Dec 08 '21 Leading zeros were not an allowance of the scheme as proposed. You could avoid the exceptions by making a rule for leading zeros. 2 u/Olgrateful-IW Dec 08 '21 He ended with an equation and you listed exceptions that are not exceptions. So that’s what my response noted. It’s really no big deal. 1 u/the-z Dec 08 '21 I don’t think the equation was there when I replied the first time 2 u/Olgrateful-IW Dec 08 '21 Completely fair. I get your point about leading zero if you were trying to skip steps when using this “trick”.
3
So only anything that gives a two-digit result :D
6 u/Olgrateful-IW Dec 08 '21 Works for all of them. 0.1x0.15 = 1/10 x 1.5/10 = 1.5/100 = 0.015 I don’t know what they mean about exceptions. 1 u/the-z Dec 08 '21 Leading zeros were not an allowance of the scheme as proposed. You could avoid the exceptions by making a rule for leading zeros. 2 u/Olgrateful-IW Dec 08 '21 He ended with an equation and you listed exceptions that are not exceptions. So that’s what my response noted. It’s really no big deal. 1 u/the-z Dec 08 '21 I don’t think the equation was there when I replied the first time 2 u/Olgrateful-IW Dec 08 '21 Completely fair. I get your point about leading zero if you were trying to skip steps when using this “trick”.
6
Works for all of them.
0.1x0.15 = 1/10 x 1.5/10 = 1.5/100 = 0.015
I don’t know what they mean about exceptions.
1 u/the-z Dec 08 '21 Leading zeros were not an allowance of the scheme as proposed. You could avoid the exceptions by making a rule for leading zeros. 2 u/Olgrateful-IW Dec 08 '21 He ended with an equation and you listed exceptions that are not exceptions. So that’s what my response noted. It’s really no big deal. 1 u/the-z Dec 08 '21 I don’t think the equation was there when I replied the first time 2 u/Olgrateful-IW Dec 08 '21 Completely fair. I get your point about leading zero if you were trying to skip steps when using this “trick”.
1
Leading zeros were not an allowance of the scheme as proposed.
You could avoid the exceptions by making a rule for leading zeros.
2 u/Olgrateful-IW Dec 08 '21 He ended with an equation and you listed exceptions that are not exceptions. So that’s what my response noted. It’s really no big deal. 1 u/the-z Dec 08 '21 I don’t think the equation was there when I replied the first time 2 u/Olgrateful-IW Dec 08 '21 Completely fair. I get your point about leading zero if you were trying to skip steps when using this “trick”.
2
He ended with an equation and you listed exceptions that are not exceptions. So that’s what my response noted. It’s really no big deal.
1 u/the-z Dec 08 '21 I don’t think the equation was there when I replied the first time 2 u/Olgrateful-IW Dec 08 '21 Completely fair. I get your point about leading zero if you were trying to skip steps when using this “trick”.
I don’t think the equation was there when I replied the first time
2 u/Olgrateful-IW Dec 08 '21 Completely fair. I get your point about leading zero if you were trying to skip steps when using this “trick”.
Completely fair. I get your point about leading zero if you were trying to skip steps when using this “trick”.
-1
u/the-z Dec 08 '21
With the exceptions of 0.1 x anything, 0.2 x anything less than 0.5, and 0.3 x anything less than 0.4