>>> int(1.999999999999999)
1
>>> int(1.9999999999999999)
2
LMAO
>>> int(1.999999999999999)
Nicholas Gutierrez
Other urls found in this thread:
floating-point-gui.de
youtube.com
twitter.com
Gabriel Green
>>> .1 + .2
0.30000000000000004
really causes electrical signals to flow through your neurons
Sebastian Lee
Yes, that's right.
Tyler Jackson
What did you expect?
Matthew Collins
>current year
>not knowing how floats work
i shiggy diggy do
Levi Howard
>pi = 3
LMAO
Tyler Allen
>>> print(Fraction('0.1') + Fraction('0.2'))
3/10
Austin Wilson
...
Michael Richardson
Obviously, since 1.99999... is equal to 2, then at some point it flips over from being in the 1 to the 2 range. Kudos to python for figuring out that happens at 16 9s.
Christopher Campbell
>1.99999... is equal to 2
Oliver Campbell
floating-point-gui.de
get educated
Juan Hall
oh boy...here we go again
Easton Reed
In theory it's not equal but in every practical situation it's equal.
Camden Davis
1/9 = 0.111...
9 * 1/9 = 9 * 0.111...
1 = 0.999...
Luis Ortiz
Thanks user I did.
Zachary Powell
You think that's weird?
1 + 2 + 3 +4 +5 +... = -1/12
Jordan Taylor
it's almost as if the computer has a finite amount of memory and you just passed the max amount of 9s it can handle before it rounds it off to save memory
> LMAO
Dylan Jones
that's not how this works at all but you've kind of got it I guess
Gabriel Hernandez
Ramanujan summation is basically bullshit.
Juan Robinson
>Ramanujan summation is basically bullshit.
brainlet detected
Jaxon Thompson
tard detected
Landon Diaz
Nice try, but no. 1/9 equals zero followed by an infinite number of 1s. However, infinity minus infinity equals infinity, so no matter how many 1s you have following the zero (even if you have an actual infinite number of them) you still need to add an infinite number of 1s for it to be exactly equal.
Ian Perez
Try using decimal.Decimal if you actually care about precision
Eli Edwards
>R
not even once
Jeremiah Williams
>1 + 2 + 3 +4 +5 +... = -1/12
That sum doesn't actually converge to -1/12. That is just what brainlets that don't understand analytic continuation interpret it as.
what you should be saying is
>the analytic continuation of riemann zeta function with an input of -1 is equal to -1/12
this video explains it pretty well even if it's over twenty minutes long
youtube.com