A small math problem!

@sushetass said in #41:

it is '67'
edit: Why did you dislike? It was right . .

It's close but not exact. See #9.

@AsDaGo said in #50:

@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:

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

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.

I already corrected the 10 ^ -17 mistake in my follow-up posts. After that, the debate shifted into the ambiguity of terms like “close” and “few.” That’s what most of the conversation was about. Maybe 5x as many posts were spent on that side of the debate.

If you look back, I wasn’t denying the original error, I admitted it. What I was doing was exploring how “close” could be defined differently, which is a separate discussion. Ignoring that and jumping back to my very first post feels like misrepresenting the whole discussion.

I’m not gaslighting. I was wrong at first, I said so, and then I argued from a different angle (over the span of a few posts). That is not the same thing as pretending I was never wrong. Let’s keep the focus on the actual debate instead of throwing around accusations for my first futile posts.

@chesspanda6 said in #52:

If you look back, I wasn’t denying the original error, I admitted it.

I don't see where you admitted it.

What I was doing was exploring how “close” could be defined differently, which is a separate discussion. Ignoring that and jumping back to my very first post feels like misrepresenting the whole discussion.

It feels like you changed the subject to avoid admitting your error and even changed your initial definition of the word "few" (which I never used in my post by the way) to make it seem like you were arguing something else.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

@AsDaGo said in #53:

I don't see where you admitted it.

It feels like you changed the subject to avoid admitting your error and even changed your initial definition of the word "few" (which I never used in my post by the way) to make it seem like you were arguing something else.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

1. You are looking for some magic sentence like “I admit I was wrong” when the reality is, I already moved past the error and corrected it in later posts. That’s what acknowledging a mistake looks like in practice, I stopped pushing the wrong number and started addressing the language issue.

2. Calling that “avoiding” is just mischaracterizing what happened. If I wanted to 'pretend' I wasn’t wrong, I’d still be arguing the bad calculation (your wrong, and so on). Instead, I shifted to what I thought was the more important angle: the problem with vague words like “close” or “few” in a mathematical context. That was the actual debate for most of the thread, yet again I mention, probably 90% of it.

3. If you want to ignore that and keep dragging things back to #18, that’s your choice. But don’t accuse me of gaslighting just because I didn’t phrase my correction the exact way you expected. I was wrong at first, I said so through my actions, and then I moved the argument forward. If someone doesn't say it aloud, does not mean it doesn't exist.

@chesspanda6 said in #54:

2. Calling that “avoiding” is just mischaracterizing what happened. If I wanted to 'pretend' I wasn’t wrong, I’d still be arguing the bad calculation (your wrong, and so on). Instead, I shifted to what I thought was the more important angle: the problem with vague words like “close” or “few” in a mathematical context. That was the actual debate for most of the thread, yet again I mention, probably 90% of it.

That doesn't explain why you suddenly changed your definition of "few" so that you would still have an argument.

2. If you want to ignore that and keep dragging things back to #18, that’s your choice. But don’t accuse me of gaslighting just because I didn’t phrase my correction the exact way you expected. I was wrong at first, I said so through my actions, and then I moved the argument forward. If someone doesn't say it aloud, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Okay, I believe that you weren't intentionally trying to gaslight me, but I still don't feel like you did the best job communicating your intentions, if you really weren't just trying to avoid being wrong.

1. I think you are holding me to an unfair standard here. I did correct the mistake by no longer pushing the wrong number, that is what acknowledging an error looks like. If I were avoiding being wrong, I’d still be disagreeing on the bad calculation. I didn’t do that (which I mentioned earlier in #54).

2. What actually happened is I moved (not avoid) the discussion toward the ambiguity in words like “close” and “few”, which became the main point of debate for the majority of posts after the correction. That’s not “avoiding” or “changing the subject to cover up a mistake”, it is addressing a different angle of the disscussion.

3. You may not like the way I handled it, or you may wish I had spelled out “I admit I was wrong” word for word, but that doesn’t change what happened: I owned the error by dropping it (not arguing on my incorrect calculation), and then I argued the broader issue. Keeping me accountable for the first response and ignoring the rest is a misrepresentation of how the forum went.

@chesspanda6 I guess we could've communicated better on both sides. Sorry if I misjudged you.