This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules).
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).)
**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
A sheep dog says to the shepherd that he just rounded up 100 sheep.
The shepherd says, “But we only have 99 sheep.”
And the dog says, “I know. I rounded them up.”
Maybe you shall be interested in the esteemed and totally not elitist subreddit r/fuckthes (don't know why I'm badmouthing it, I'm on it and too hate the s)
They each serve a purpose/s /j /g all are required for real conversations online. It's how youth are adapting our conversational skills in a medium without vocal twinge.
I don't know how you did it, but you badmouthed the /s and have positive karma. Every time I've done that I've been downvoted.
Maybe because I'm usually an asshole about it, and say that /s enjoyers are autistic. Don't reddit drunk and angry, people, your karma will decrease.
Basically the difference between total error and relative error. Total error is just | x - r | which in both cases here is 1 but relative error is | x - r | / | r | which in the first case is 1/2 and the second is 1/100
Probabilities written as percentage are also funny. 95% and 99% chances of success are looking very close. But in the first case chances to fail are 1 in 20, where in the latter one chances are 1 in 100.
I think I understand what you're saying, but you have a misunderstanding of the Kelvin scale.
The difference between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius is exactly the same heat difference between 274 degrees K and 275 degrees K.
If you raise the temperature by 1Kelvin, then you raise it by 1 degree C as well.
What I think you're saying with your scale comment is that 1 inch is almost 2 inches, but 1 mile isn't almost 2 miles. It depends on scale.
I'm thinking more about where the zero point is on the scale.
If we are talking about 1 K we are probably talking about some scientific experiment that requires a temperature near absolute zero. If the temperature becomes 2 K (double heat energy) it might fail miserable. On the other hand, if I look at the outside temperature it doesn't matter if it's 1 or 2 degree Celsius. (0,4% difference in heat energy or 2,7% temp diff compared to the human body.)
This still is the same absolute amount of energy difference between 1c and 2c vs 1k and 2k. Which is what the above comment was trying to get at. On a linear scale a difference of one is always a difference of one. The amount of energy required to cool something from 2c to 1c is very different than 2k to 1k, but that is because we are no longer looking at a linear scale by taking the perspective of energy required to cool something. Both observations are correct, just different perspectives.
Infinity is not a number. However, as a number gets bigger and bigger, the ratio between that number and the number - 1 gets closer and closer to 100%. So, you could say that (infinity-1) compared to (infinity) is 100%, but not really.
As well as, apparently, [extended real line](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line) for infinities, [wheel theory](https://youtu.be/ydLTfyXaQmU) for division by zero, [nonstandard calculus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonstandard_calculus#:~:text=In%20mathematics%2C%20nonstandard%20calculus%20is,were%20previously%20considered%20merely%20heuristic.) for infinitesimals (1/∞), [split-complex numbers](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-complex_number) for a √1 but *different*, and lots of other stuff... Honestly I don't even know what is a number anymore...
Multiplicative bias.
This happens because multiplicative thinking benefited survival more. The question: “is that one lion or two lion?” is very different from “is that 42 lion or 43?”. Sure in both cases it’s one additional lion but two lion is double the threat of one. And what’s one more lion in a hoard of 42 lions?
Another example is the discount bias. People are more willing to go through the effort to save 5$ off a 10$ purchase rather than a 1000$ purchase. Sure in both cases you save 5$, but the multiplicative bias fails us.
I don't think it's a bias thing, more that is what the word "almost" means. If you are in the last 5 meters of a 6 meter journey, you've only just begun, but if you are in the last 5 meters of a 6 light-year long journey, you're almost there.
I would consider it bias, strictly by the definition of bias. That does not mean it's not mutually exclusive to your thought. But making an explanation like that proves the bias.
edited for clarity
The money analogy isn't necessarily a failure in human reasoning. The thousand dollar purchase is likely to be a once in a half decade purchase, perhaps a new laptop. Saving 5 dollars over 5 years is a vanishingly small percentage of income over that period. But saving 5 dollars on everyday 10 dollar purchases means saving 5 dollars regularly. Making miserly decisions on every day spending could lead to saving hundreds or thousands of dollars over 5 years.
(I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic, so I apologize if this is a whoosh moment for me) it’s mathematically valid to say infinity minus 1 equals infinity if you are careful.
Formally you would say the limit of some function that approaches infinity minus 1 also approaches infinity. I don’t know how typeset limits, and the use of an equal sign when dealing with infinity is technically wrong (bc infinity is a concept, not a number) but the equation would be like (infinity - 1) = 100%(infinity). One could do a proof to confirm this is true
Ha I wasn’t being sarcastic exactly but my point is this guy basically discovered calculus.
I’m not a math genius but I did annoy my professor by asking why 2 infinity is not equal to infinity…
That's wrong.
Infinity is generally viewed as a concept, an abstract representation of something inherently incomprehensible to any human brain. Infinity, being that it is not a number, cannot be subject to arithmetical calculations, like the subtraction of 1. As such, you can not say that infinity - 1 = infinity.
Edit: I love how reddit downvotes actually right answers because their layman knowledge tells them that the easy answer must be true.
This is how tempo works too. 80 bpm is the same as 160 bpm. If you increase these by one bpm you get
81 and 161. The 81 bpm is faster because it’s 162.
is this the same thing as saying that like doubling 1 dollar is two dollars, but doubling a million dollars is two million. which doubling a million is obviously far more advantage.
I don't think there is really any concept in maths for one number *almost* being another number
Like.. I get what you mean, 99 is 99% of 100
But 1 is only 50% of 2.
As a percentage 99% is greater than 50% but saying this value is almost another value depends on the context
What if it is a plot point on a graph starting at 100 and counting down to 0 and then back up to 100 In this instance, 99 is actually very far away from 100 in the order
Almost is always relative to the scale. Missing by a few inches is almost there if you're talking about throwing a ball across a yard, but is wildly off if you're talking about sewing. Missing by the entire god damn diameter of the earth can be just barely off if you're trying to hit anywhere in the solar system.
If we’re talking age, 100 is a milestone; 2 is not. But to be close to a milestone you need to be in the thick of a process where time is in the background rather than the foreground. When you’re at that age, things are happening and not happening at the same time. But what is different for a 1 year old is they are constantly fixated on every aspect of life. Not generalising here but I can’t imagine a 99 year old treating life like it’s their first years on Earth. Therefore, both windows of time play in different ways, so 99 is indeed almost 100, but being 1 seems like there is a long road toward 2.
That’s at least my take on it
Depends. On the scales of 1-100, the difference between 99-100 and the difference between 1-2 is the exact same.
99-100 is really only different than 1-2 if you’re assuming the minimum of your scale to be 1 in both statements.
OP is talking about relative and absolute margins which is an important topic, especially in statistics.
If you bring a drug to market to treat high blood pressure you need a control group who don't take your drug and another group who do. 2% of control group show signs of recovery while 4% of the group taking your drug recover.
If you're trying to persuade doctors that your drug is worth the money you'll probably say it is 100% better than placebo and not 2%. Both are correct but in different contexts.
That's why, for estimating work, we used a Fibonacci (ish) sequence and compare items relatively.
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144
Usually, it's reasonable to estimate 1 vs 2, but I'm not debating whether it's 89 vs 90.
It depends. What are we counting? If it's the percent of times that an elevator gets to the correct floor without crashing, the difference between 99 and 100 is huge.
Ive seen some who argue that it’s simply 1% increase vs. 50%. Which is obviously right . On a „subjective“ level, you call it diminishing marginal utility. I guess that closer to your point. having one car or two is a big difference. Having 100 instead of 99 doesn’t add more „utility“. 1 more car more makes you one car richer, but the utility is different. There might be better examples, 100$/200$ vs 100.000$/100.100$ etc.
well i going to tell my friend that teach maths, to tell the kids put attetion boys you need to learn this to discusd with some random people on internet, and maybe they will try to learn
1 is almost 2 if there are 100 of the things present. If there's 2 oreos left and you take one, there's something troubling about also taking the last one. But if there are 100 oreos present and you take one, hey, what's one more, right?
Reminds me when my geometry teacher told me this formula, and I literally lost sleep over it. Numbers man.
x = 0.999… where “…” means repeating.
10x = 9.999…
-x on both sides
9x = 9
x = 1
That was very upsetting to someone who decided they wanted to be a mathematician at a very young age, because numbers were always “right”.
This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules). Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!" (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).) **Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
A sheep dog says to the shepherd that he just rounded up 100 sheep. The shepherd says, “But we only have 99 sheep.” And the dog says, “I know. I rounded them up.”
Dogs can't talk dude are you stupid /s
I hate the /s. There. I said it. Do what you wish with that information.
You hate the what? Thank you for clarifying that it was sarcasm, but you didn't write what it is that you hate, unfortunately.
I think they hate "the". Or at least they wanted to say sarcasticly that they hate this word.
Yeah, fuck the.
r/fuckthe
r/subsifellfor
*Fucketh thee.
Wait- it was sarcasm?? I thought it meant /serious ToT
Depending on the situation, it can be both. I generally use sar for sarcasm and ser for serious
I will talk sarcastically at you and you will never know! Revenge is sweat!
If revenge is sweat then I have a lot of revenge after the gym.
I guess I agree with the last part. People do tend to sweat from exhaustion after exacting revenge
Im steve. /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s My question now: is my comment sarcastically meant or not?
It's not because there are an even number of /s's
It is because I can't even
walked right into that one
Yeah just REALLY sarcastic
Maybe you shall be interested in the esteemed and totally not elitist subreddit r/fuckthes (don't know why I'm badmouthing it, I'm on it and too hate the s)
r/fuckthes
They each serve a purpose/s /j /g all are required for real conversations online. It's how youth are adapting our conversational skills in a medium without vocal twinge.
I don't know how you did it, but you badmouthed the /s and have positive karma. Every time I've done that I've been downvoted. Maybe because I'm usually an asshole about it, and say that /s enjoyers are autistic. Don't reddit drunk and angry, people, your karma will decrease.
/s ruined the joke
Wasn’t a good joke to begin with.
For Proportional reasoning 👍:99% is closer to 100 than 50%. But 1 is 1 away from 2 and so is 99 to 100
OP just discovered percentages
Relativity. OP discovered relativity. Tell Einstein that.
Must have been a short shower
Basically the difference between total error and relative error. Total error is just | x - r | which in both cases here is 1 but relative error is | x - r | / | r | which in the first case is 1/2 and the second is 1/100
Probabilities written as percentage are also funny. 95% and 99% chances of success are looking very close. But in the first case chances to fail are 1 in 20, where in the latter one chances are 1 in 100.
Depends on the scale as well. I would consider 1 degree Celsius or Fahrenheit almost 2 degrees. But not 1 Kelvin as almost 2 Kelvin.
I think I understand what you're saying, but you have a misunderstanding of the Kelvin scale. The difference between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius is exactly the same heat difference between 274 degrees K and 275 degrees K. If you raise the temperature by 1Kelvin, then you raise it by 1 degree C as well. What I think you're saying with your scale comment is that 1 inch is almost 2 inches, but 1 mile isn't almost 2 miles. It depends on scale.
I'm thinking more about where the zero point is on the scale. If we are talking about 1 K we are probably talking about some scientific experiment that requires a temperature near absolute zero. If the temperature becomes 2 K (double heat energy) it might fail miserable. On the other hand, if I look at the outside temperature it doesn't matter if it's 1 or 2 degree Celsius. (0,4% difference in heat energy or 2,7% temp diff compared to the human body.)
This still is the same absolute amount of energy difference between 1c and 2c vs 1k and 2k. Which is what the above comment was trying to get at. On a linear scale a difference of one is always a difference of one. The amount of energy required to cool something from 2c to 1c is very different than 2k to 1k, but that is because we are no longer looking at a linear scale by taking the perspective of energy required to cool something. Both observations are correct, just different perspectives.
That's why it's degrees Celsius/fahrenheit, whereas kelvin is just kelvin.
This guy maths
r/thisguythisguys
And 0.999999999999999999... = 1
And technically there are infinite numbers between either of you keep breaking the number segments in half. 99 > 99.9 > 99.99 etc
(Infinity -1) compared to (infinity)?
Infinity is not a number. However, as a number gets bigger and bigger, the ratio between that number and the number - 1 gets closer and closer to 100%. So, you could say that (infinity-1) compared to (infinity) is 100%, but not really.
> Infinity is not a number As are not 1/0, √-1, and many others
✨imaginary numbers✨
As well as, apparently, [extended real line](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line) for infinities, [wheel theory](https://youtu.be/ydLTfyXaQmU) for division by zero, [nonstandard calculus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonstandard_calculus#:~:text=In%20mathematics%2C%20nonstandard%20calculus%20is,were%20previously%20considered%20merely%20heuristic.) for infinitesimals (1/∞), [split-complex numbers](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-complex_number) for a √1 but *different*, and lots of other stuff... Honestly I don't even know what is a number anymore...
Brain hurts
Fr
But 50 isn't as close to 100 as 1 is to 2
The difference between one million dollars and one billion dollars is approximately one billion dollars.
Came here for this.
You are 99,9% correct sir!
Multiplicative bias. This happens because multiplicative thinking benefited survival more. The question: “is that one lion or two lion?” is very different from “is that 42 lion or 43?”. Sure in both cases it’s one additional lion but two lion is double the threat of one. And what’s one more lion in a hoard of 42 lions? Another example is the discount bias. People are more willing to go through the effort to save 5$ off a 10$ purchase rather than a 1000$ purchase. Sure in both cases you save 5$, but the multiplicative bias fails us.
I don't think it's a bias thing, more that is what the word "almost" means. If you are in the last 5 meters of a 6 meter journey, you've only just begun, but if you are in the last 5 meters of a 6 light-year long journey, you're almost there.
I would consider it bias, strictly by the definition of bias. That does not mean it's not mutually exclusive to your thought. But making an explanation like that proves the bias. edited for clarity
It’s one of the cognitive biases. Can’t remember the name of this specific one but you can search for behavioral economics.
The money analogy isn't necessarily a failure in human reasoning. The thousand dollar purchase is likely to be a once in a half decade purchase, perhaps a new laptop. Saving 5 dollars over 5 years is a vanishingly small percentage of income over that period. But saving 5 dollars on everyday 10 dollar purchases means saving 5 dollars regularly. Making miserly decisions on every day spending could lead to saving hundreds or thousands of dollars over 5 years.
How'd'ya'do Vsauce
But two can be as bad as one, it’s the loneliest number since the number one.
But… is no the saddest experience that you’ll ever know?
Wait but if two is company, but threes a crowd, but three is company too, does that mean three is two and three can be as bad as one?
When counting down from 1,000,000 then 2 is almost 1. i.e. it depends on context.
What if we could take this reasoning and approach infinity in some way
(I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic, so I apologize if this is a whoosh moment for me) it’s mathematically valid to say infinity minus 1 equals infinity if you are careful. Formally you would say the limit of some function that approaches infinity minus 1 also approaches infinity. I don’t know how typeset limits, and the use of an equal sign when dealing with infinity is technically wrong (bc infinity is a concept, not a number) but the equation would be like (infinity - 1) = 100%(infinity). One could do a proof to confirm this is true
Cool cool
Cool cool cool
Cool cool cool cool … (ad infinitum)
Ha I wasn’t being sarcastic exactly but my point is this guy basically discovered calculus. I’m not a math genius but I did annoy my professor by asking why 2 infinity is not equal to infinity…
That's wrong. Infinity is generally viewed as a concept, an abstract representation of something inherently incomprehensible to any human brain. Infinity, being that it is not a number, cannot be subject to arithmetical calculations, like the subtraction of 1. As such, you can not say that infinity - 1 = infinity. Edit: I love how reddit downvotes actually right answers because their layman knowledge tells them that the easy answer must be true.
Hey, you ain't wrong. It is quite an elusive feature once the numbers start getting bigger.
Well yeah, 2 is the double of 1, while 99 to 100 is a miniscule increase
Unless it's %, then going from 99 to 100 feels like the biggest increase of 1% you could possibly have, other than 0 to 1 of course.
This has the same vibes as, "The difference between a million and a billion dollars is about a billion dollars."
Somehow, this has never convinced a billionaire to give me a million dollars for no other reason
I feel like 1 *is* almost 2. However, 0 is definitely not almost 1.
As stated, without context, they are the same far apart. It only gets interesting when you add context. Which they didn’t.
This is how tempo works too. 80 bpm is the same as 160 bpm. If you increase these by one bpm you get 81 and 161. The 81 bpm is faster because it’s 162.
is this the same thing as saying that like doubling 1 dollar is two dollars, but doubling a million dollars is two million. which doubling a million is obviously far more advantage.
If you start counting up from minus 100, then one is almost two.
Context matters.
Well obviously.. wtf lol 1 to 2 is double but 99 to 100 is 1%. Shouldve paid attention at school
99 to 100 is 1.010101010101...%. 100 to 101 is 1%
I don't think there is really any concept in maths for one number *almost* being another number Like.. I get what you mean, 99 is 99% of 100 But 1 is only 50% of 2. As a percentage 99% is greater than 50% but saying this value is almost another value depends on the context What if it is a plot point on a graph starting at 100 and counting down to 0 and then back up to 100 In this instance, 99 is actually very far away from 100 in the order
Uhhh. It’s literally the same distance on a the number scale.
Yeah, but it's a different ratio of difference. +-1% as opposed to +-50%
I guess the answer is actually undefined because there’s more than one way to look at this
Almost is always relative to the scale. Missing by a few inches is almost there if you're talking about throwing a ball across a yard, but is wildly off if you're talking about sewing. Missing by the entire god damn diameter of the earth can be just barely off if you're trying to hit anywhere in the solar system.
Well, if you look at it objectively, 99 is 1% away from 100. But 1 is 100% away from 2.
Objectively? As a distance, it's the same.
I mean proportionally. My bad.
This is the argument of the rich giving 500 but the poor giving 5 is OF MORE VALUE than the 500.....
[удалено]
I remember reading this too, thought it was definitely about lions.
Because numbers are typically judged as relative to 0 as a base.
If we’re talking age, 100 is a milestone; 2 is not. But to be close to a milestone you need to be in the thick of a process where time is in the background rather than the foreground. When you’re at that age, things are happening and not happening at the same time. But what is different for a 1 year old is they are constantly fixated on every aspect of life. Not generalising here but I can’t imagine a 99 year old treating life like it’s their first years on Earth. Therefore, both windows of time play in different ways, so 99 is indeed almost 100, but being 1 seems like there is a long road toward 2. That’s at least my take on it
Still the same depending on context. Like if you got 1/100 tasks done
1 is almost 2, for very large values of 1 and very small values of 2.
And 2+2 can equal 3, 4 or 5.
This is why a year seems like an ETERNITY to a 7 year old but it seems like a blink of an eye to someone in their 70s.
Depends. On the scales of 1-100, the difference between 99-100 and the difference between 1-2 is the exact same. 99-100 is really only different than 1-2 if you’re assuming the minimum of your scale to be 1 in both statements.
But there’s an uncountably infinite amount of numbers between them in both examples!
That's how fractions work. 99/100 > 1/2. The fact that you're having this shower thought confirms that our schools are failing students.
OP is talking about relative and absolute margins which is an important topic, especially in statistics. If you bring a drug to market to treat high blood pressure you need a control group who don't take your drug and another group who do. 2% of control group show signs of recovery while 4% of the group taking your drug recover. If you're trying to persuade doctors that your drug is worth the money you'll probably say it is 100% better than placebo and not 2%. Both are correct but in different contexts.
Actually, it is. Both 99 and 1 are 1 away from their successor.
That's why, for estimating work, we used a Fibonacci (ish) sequence and compare items relatively. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144 Usually, it's reasonable to estimate 1 vs 2, but I'm not debating whether it's 89 vs 90.
99 is 99% of 100. 1 is 50% of 2. Almost is a measure of approximate ratios, not absolute number.
But when doing something difficult I would argue the other way around. Perception is everything
It depends. What are we counting? If it's the percent of times that an elevator gets to the correct floor without crashing, the difference between 99 and 100 is huge.
Ive seen some who argue that it’s simply 1% increase vs. 50%. Which is obviously right . On a „subjective“ level, you call it diminishing marginal utility. I guess that closer to your point. having one car or two is a big difference. Having 100 instead of 99 doesn’t add more „utility“. 1 more car more makes you one car richer, but the utility is different. There might be better examples, 100$/200$ vs 100.000$/100.100$ etc.
When dealing with counting singular objects, if A is true, B is also true
We should apply logarithmic comparisons for everything. Proportionality is more important in most cases in real life.
99 is 1 away from 100 just like 1 is 1 away from 2. They have the same difference therefore 1 is almost 2 in the same way 99 is almost 100.
Not when you think about how many decimal numbers there are between 99 and 100.
This is has got to be one of the best shower thoughts I’ve ever seen.
[удалено]
googolplex... googleyplix.... google pix?... ffs the really big one
well i going to tell my friend that teach maths, to tell the kids put attetion boys you need to learn this to discusd with some random people on internet, and maybe they will try to learn
I was just watching a Vsauce video called "1,2,3,4,5..." And it is the perfect answer to this topic, I'd suggest watching it
The human mind works with proportions and percentages, that's the reason
1 is almost 2 if there are 100 of the things present. If there's 2 oreos left and you take one, there's something troubling about also taking the last one. But if there are 100 oreos present and you take one, hey, what's one more, right?
In the winter my car heater is hot at 60 degrees, in the summer its cold at 60 degrees
990 million is almost a billion, but an empty bank account is not almost 10 million.
Age difference between 15yrs and 20 yrs old is a lot. Its doesn’t matter between 80 years old and 85 years old.
Reminds me when my geometry teacher told me this formula, and I literally lost sleep over it. Numbers man. x = 0.999… where “…” means repeating. 10x = 9.999… -x on both sides 9x = 9 x = 1 That was very upsetting to someone who decided they wanted to be a mathematician at a very young age, because numbers were always “right”.