Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone to Lord of the memes@midwest.socialEnglish · 1 year agoA million more well on the wayaussie.zoneimagemessage-square21fedilinkarrow-up1558arrow-down116
arrow-up1542arrow-down1imageA million more well on the wayaussie.zoneAussiemandeus@aussie.zone to Lord of the memes@midwest.socialEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square21fedilink
minus-squareenkers@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up21arrow-down1·edit-21 year ago therefore we cannot assume that 6001 is exactly half of the total. Correct, all we can deduce is the bounds: Let x be the number of spears hoped for. 6000 < x/2 < 6002 12000 < x < 12004 Edit: fixed error
minus-squarerasensprenger@feddit.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13·1 year agoLess than half and more than half imply strict inequality, so 6000 < x/2 < 6002, so 12001 <= x <= 12003
minus-squareenkers@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·edit-21 year agoYou’re absolutely correct, it should be “<”. Since he wished for such an odd number, I wouldn’t constrain x to integers though. Maybe he wished for “more than twelve thousand spears”?
Correct, all we can deduce is the bounds:
Let x be the number of spears hoped for.
6000 < x/2 < 6002
12000 < x < 12004
Edit: fixed error
Less than half and more than half imply strict inequality, so 6000 < x/2 < 6002, so 12001 <= x <= 12003
You’re absolutely correct, it should be “<”. Since he wished for such an odd number, I wouldn’t constrain x to integers though. Maybe he wished for “more than twelve thousand spears”?