it is '67'
edit: Why did you dislike? It was right . .
@LeChuchel said in #1:
> Can You guess the right answer of this math problem:
>
> 5565×55656655÷55565665656+62−0,57411274423480821=?
-57,411,274,423,480,753.4258872558
@sushetass said in #41:
> it is '67'
basically
@AsDaGo I offer a draw.
@chesspanda6 said in #44:
> @AsDaGo I offer a draw.
What do you mean? I thought we came to the conclusion that the misunderstanding was your unusual (and frankly incorrect) use of common words so the argument was over.
@TheInfamousHamilton said in #42:
> -57,411,274,423,480,753.4258872558
Correct. Like actuallly. I've calculated this and your correct
@LeChuchel said in #1:
> Can You guess the right answer of this math problem:
-57,411,274,423,480,753.4258872558
@chesspanda6 said in #44:
> @AsDaGo I offer a draw.
Dude its -57,411,274,423,480,753.4258872558
@AsDaGo said in #45:
> What do you mean? I thought we came to the conclusion that the misunderstanding was your unusual (and frankly incorrect) use of common words so the argument was over.
ok, well, here is my response:
The entire issue here proves what I’ve been saying all along: words like “few” or “close” are useless in mathematics because they don’t have fixed, universal meanings. If one person says “few” and means 0, another means 3, and someone else thinks it could mean hundreds, then the word carries no precision at all (useless for mathmematics and sciences). The same goes for “close”; if you say two values are “close,” but one person means within 0.00000000000000015% and another infers 500,000 is “close” to 1, then the term loses any real communicative value. That is exactly why precision matters in math and science. It isn’t about being vague, it’s about making sure the meaning is definite so nothing gets misinterpreted. If a single word can be interpreted in multiple contradictory ways, then it fails at the basic purpose of language, which is to communicate ideas clearly. That is why relying on exact numbers or clearly defined approximations is used, because unlike “few” or “close,” there’s no room for context interpretation. Ironically, you have seemed to argue about the definitions of words, and completely ignore the argument I have posed.
@chesspanda6 I guess I see your point, but I'm not sure that's what you were originally arguing at all, and you seem to be trying to gaslight me (or you forgot). See this post:
@chesspanda6 said in #18:
> Well, according to my calculations, close would be 1,2, or maybe 5 off. But, the answer 76100000... is a bit too great to be called close to 67, isn't it? :P
You said "close would be 1,2, or maybe 5 off" and 9.8*10^-17 is much less than any of those numbers. Then you said "But, the answer 76100000... is a bit too great to be called close to 67, isn't it? :P" and I'm not sure where you got the number "76100000...". You also said
@chesspanda6 said in #20:
> 15512081662300000022691067351/231523606900000000000000000 - 67 = 9 no?
which is incorrect.
It's fine to be wrong, but it's not cool to try and gaslight people into thinking you were never wrong. This is just a silly math question, but you should stop this behavior now so you don't do it when it matters, okay? I'll accept your draw.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.