• candybrie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    1×3+2 = 5

    Sure you could claim it’s 5x, but why do that when the other rule you have already works?

    • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Because that was a simpler equation to read and equate to x3.

      1x3+2 = 5 = 1*5. They are equivalent.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Equivalent doesn’t mean correct.

        It has one equation, and substituting another, one that’s only “correct” for a single very specific case for that matter…. Will always be marked wrong/incorrect.

        You’ve failed your math assignment.

        • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          You’ve failed your math assignment.

          TF are you talking about?

          OP had an assignment: post 3x as many triangles.

          I never had any assignment, I simply posted a couple equations illustrating how that has not happened.

          Stating what singular equation covers every case is entirely your prerogative.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            You claim they are off by a factor of 2x (5x instead of 3x) while they are only off by a paltry 2 units.

            I’m calling out your calling out, and it’s hilarious that you still can’t comprehend this.

            If you want to correct someone, do it right lmfao.

            • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              You claim they are off by a factor of 2x (5x instead of 3x) while they are only off by a paltry 2 units.

              I claimed the original x3 multiplication is actually x5, then stated further multiplications were off by 2.

              Again 100% true. Nothing I’ve said in this thread is untrue. Instead you’ve applied my comments to a question that was not asked; “what singular equation describes this behaviour?” then tried to shit on me for ‘incorrectly’ answering this question I had nothing to do with.

              The original 1 -> 5 is indeed x5. No matter what pedantic bullshit you pull out of your ass, 1 x 5 still equals 5. Regardless of which equations you decide to use to arrive at that answer; 5 is still 5 times greater than 1. That’s all I had stated, yet you claim this is wrong, because it doesn’t conform to your own personal reality.

              The original math was also off by two, as 1x5 = 1x3+2 but that doesn’t invalidate the fact that it’s x5 instead of just x3. Two things can be true at the same time. Wild.

              Just because I didn’t use a singular equation doesn’t make that math wrong.

              It’s been entirely your prerogative to change the topic and limit this to a singular equation like this is an exam in some high school math class. Nobody asked what the equation that describes this behavior is; that was all you, relentlessly pushing your own desires upon others.

              All I did/am here for was to show that this image is not x3 the previous; nor was the original set of posts. Use whatever equations you like, this image is still not 3x as many triangles as previous.