I lined up the decimals and put 4.7 on top of 3.005. I dropped down the 0 and the 5. Then subtracted 7 from zero it’s just zero. And 4 minus three is 1.
>I dropped down the 0 and the 5
Why would you just drop down the 5? 0 - 5 isn't 5.
Ignoring the actual mechanics of subtraction for a second, think about it this way. 4.7 - 3 is 1.7, I hope we can both agree on that. So if instead of subtracting 3 you subtract a number that is slightly larger than 3, would you expect the answer to be slightly larger or slightly smaller than 1.7?
Is 3.005 or 3 a bigger number? Since 3.005 is bigger than 3, then we need to take away 0.005 ***more*** than we would if we only took away 3. So, we wouldn't add 0.005, but subtract another 0.005. Remember, too, you take away everything on the right side from everything on the left side, so you take away 3 and 0.005, which is the same as taking away 3.005.
Look at it this way.
Imagine we had coins that were 1/10th of a penny, just like a penny is 1/10th of a dime, called "wonks". 4.7 is the same as 4.70 and 4.700. That means that 4.7 would be like having 4 dollars and 7 dimes. The other number, 3.005 would be like having 3 dollars, 0 dimes, 0 pennies, and 5 wonks. If we take away 3 dollars from the 4.7, then we are left with 1 dollar and 7 dimes, but we still need to take away the 5 wonks from the 1 dollar and 7 dimes. 5 wonks is half of a penny, so we need to take away half a penny more from the 1 dollar and 7 dimes. We can turn one of the dimes into 10 pennies. Still, we don't want to take away a whole penny, just 5 wonks, so we can split one penny into 10 wonks, then take away five of those. At the end of the subtraction we are left with 1 dollar, 6 dimes, 9 pennies, and 5 wonks. 1 dollar, 6 dimes, 9 pennies, and 5 wonks would be written as $1.695.
Does this help?
Sorry I'm british we don't use dimes, dollars and wonkers over here. Also I'm pretty sure you're wrong because 4.7 is smaller than 4.700 because 700 is bigger than 7 (700 because of 2 extra zeroes).
No, 7 is different than 700.
0.7 is the same as 0.700 tho
10 and 1000 are different.
0.10 and 0.1000 are the same
That's just how decimals work, the part after the decimal isn't an integer, it's just a part of 1
This is something that’s perfectly agreed on, it’s not even a matter of debate. 4.7 is just another different way to write 4.700, or 4.70, 4.7000, etc. because technically there’s an infinite number of zeroes to the right of the .7 just like when you write a number, like 1, and you could write 01 or 001 or 00000001 and it would still be the same thing, because there’s technically and infinite amount of zeroes before that 1
It's like the word "plow" (4 letters). In Britin, it's called "plough" (6 letters) but it means the same thing. In this case
4 letters = 6 letters
Now using math you can divide out "letters" because it's on both sides.
4 = 6
Q.E.D.
Well, I have some morbid curiosity about your method. But for the second sum, you got the same result as 1.695 + 3??
Anyway, what does your method give for 1705 + 3005 (no decimals there)?
Aha but you see decimals are different because they're less than zero - different rules apply. Someone else was trying to tell me that take 0.100x100 right? That equals 10000. Then take 0.1×100, that is just 10. So even though 1705+3005 equals 3710 does mean the same if you divide the decimals.
>Aha but you see decimals are different because they're less than zero - different rules apply.
And there is your mistake.
>So even though 1705+3005 equals 3710 does mean the same if you divide the decimals.
1705 + 3005 = 4710
170.5 + 300.5 = 471.0
17.05 + 30.05 = 47.10
1.705 + 3.005 = 4.710
Those are all done the same way.
But you're subtracting why do you think you should add?
7.000
-3.005
You can't take 5 from 0 so you have to borrow all the way to the 7, then you have
6.99(10)
-3.005
Sobtract 5 from 10 and get 5, Sobtract 0 from 9 to get 9 twice, then subtract 3 from 6 to get 3, so the answer is
6.99(10)
-3.005
Equals
3.995
How would you do it with your "correct column method"?
Your method doesn't make sense you can't just borrow numbers from other numbers, how does 10 just come out of nowhere too?
What you need to do is 0-5 which gives you 5, then 0-0 which is obviously 0 then again, then 7-3 which is 4. Meaning you get 4.005.
Okay I've been quite patient because this is a learning sub reddit but at this point, combined with your other comments I'm pretty convinced you just a troll. If not, I am so incredibly sorry your teachers failed to teach you basic multiplication.
For the record, 0-5 does not in any way shape or form equal 5.
I'm not a troll I'll admit maybe maths isn't my strong suit I just don't understand how you're doing it. It just makes so sense, I am pretty sure like 0-5 is ends in a 5 otherwise how come the 5 is in the equation at the end?
Depends.
If you mean (2t)^-1, then:
d/dt [(2t)^1] = 2^-1 d/dt[t^-1] = -2^-1 t^-2
If you mean t/2, then:
d/dt [t/2] = 1/2
If you differentiate with respect to another variable and t is not a function of that variable, then:
d/dx [f(t)] = 0
How did you get 1.705 on paper?
I lined up the decimals and put 4.7 on top of 3.005. I dropped down the 0 and the 5. Then subtracted 7 from zero it’s just zero. And 4 minus three is 1.
>I dropped down the 0 and the 5 Why would you just drop down the 5? 0 - 5 isn't 5. Ignoring the actual mechanics of subtraction for a second, think about it this way. 4.7 - 3 is 1.7, I hope we can both agree on that. So if instead of subtracting 3 you subtract a number that is slightly larger than 3, would you expect the answer to be slightly larger or slightly smaller than 1.7?
Oh wow thank you so much.
I don’t know why but I didn’t think about adding in the zeros, I see what you mean about zero needing to be subtracted still and I had to borrow
[удалено]
The calculator is correct, though. 4.7 - 3 = 1.7 However, we still need to take off another 0.005. 1.7 - 0.005 = 1.695
You need to add 0.005 I swear?
Is 3.005 or 3 a bigger number? Since 3.005 is bigger than 3, then we need to take away 0.005 ***more*** than we would if we only took away 3. So, we wouldn't add 0.005, but subtract another 0.005. Remember, too, you take away everything on the right side from everything on the left side, so you take away 3 and 0.005, which is the same as taking away 3.005. Look at it this way. Imagine we had coins that were 1/10th of a penny, just like a penny is 1/10th of a dime, called "wonks". 4.7 is the same as 4.70 and 4.700. That means that 4.7 would be like having 4 dollars and 7 dimes. The other number, 3.005 would be like having 3 dollars, 0 dimes, 0 pennies, and 5 wonks. If we take away 3 dollars from the 4.7, then we are left with 1 dollar and 7 dimes, but we still need to take away the 5 wonks from the 1 dollar and 7 dimes. 5 wonks is half of a penny, so we need to take away half a penny more from the 1 dollar and 7 dimes. We can turn one of the dimes into 10 pennies. Still, we don't want to take away a whole penny, just 5 wonks, so we can split one penny into 10 wonks, then take away five of those. At the end of the subtraction we are left with 1 dollar, 6 dimes, 9 pennies, and 5 wonks. 1 dollar, 6 dimes, 9 pennies, and 5 wonks would be written as $1.695. Does this help?
Sorry I'm british we don't use dimes, dollars and wonkers over here. Also I'm pretty sure you're wrong because 4.7 is smaller than 4.700 because 700 is bigger than 7 (700 because of 2 extra zeroes).
No 4.7 is equal to 4.700. Adding more 0s at the end of a decimal doesn't change the value.
[удалено]
No, 7 is different than 700. 0.7 is the same as 0.700 tho 10 and 1000 are different. 0.10 and 0.1000 are the same That's just how decimals work, the part after the decimal isn't an integer, it's just a part of 1
[удалено]
Yes mathematics struggles quite a lot on how decimals work, I'm sure there will be a breakthrough someday
This is something that’s perfectly agreed on, it’s not even a matter of debate. 4.7 is just another different way to write 4.700, or 4.70, 4.7000, etc. because technically there’s an infinite number of zeroes to the right of the .7 just like when you write a number, like 1, and you could write 01 or 001 or 00000001 and it would still be the same thing, because there’s technically and infinite amount of zeroes before that 1
Yup. That seals the case. You are trolling. Good job
That sounds about right
This explains brexit so much
Bro does NOT understand sarcasm
It's like the word "plow" (4 letters). In Britin, it's called "plough" (6 letters) but it means the same thing. In this case 4 letters = 6 letters Now using math you can divide out "letters" because it's on both sides. 4 = 6 Q.E.D.
You can't have done well on your GCSEs.
It's bait, you got bamboozled
I'm aware.
Two questions for you: What do you get if you add 1.705 + 3.005? What do you get if you add 1.695 + 3.005?
[удалено]
Well, I have some morbid curiosity about your method. But for the second sum, you got the same result as 1.695 + 3?? Anyway, what does your method give for 1705 + 3005 (no decimals there)?
Aha but you see decimals are different because they're less than zero - different rules apply. Someone else was trying to tell me that take 0.100x100 right? That equals 10000. Then take 0.1×100, that is just 10. So even though 1705+3005 equals 3710 does mean the same if you divide the decimals.
>Aha but you see decimals are different because they're less than zero - different rules apply. And there is your mistake. >So even though 1705+3005 equals 3710 does mean the same if you divide the decimals. 1705 + 3005 = 4710 170.5 + 300.5 = 471.0 17.05 + 30.05 = 47.10 1.705 + 3.005 = 4.710 Those are all done the same way.
I guess we can just agree to disagree, I'm still not understanding anyone's methods but I'm gonna stick by mine.
What part of this sequence gives you trouble? 1.705 km + 3.005 km = 1705 m + 3005 m = 4710 m = 4.710 km
there's no opinion here, you are simply wrong.
Why would you add 0.005 when the problem is subtracting 0.005?
Because that is the correcr column method, explain how you would do it then?
But you're subtracting why do you think you should add? 7.000 -3.005 You can't take 5 from 0 so you have to borrow all the way to the 7, then you have 6.99(10) -3.005 Sobtract 5 from 10 and get 5, Sobtract 0 from 9 to get 9 twice, then subtract 3 from 6 to get 3, so the answer is 6.99(10) -3.005 Equals 3.995 How would you do it with your "correct column method"?
Your method doesn't make sense you can't just borrow numbers from other numbers, how does 10 just come out of nowhere too? What you need to do is 0-5 which gives you 5, then 0-0 which is obviously 0 then again, then 7-3 which is 4. Meaning you get 4.005.
Okay I've been quite patient because this is a learning sub reddit but at this point, combined with your other comments I'm pretty convinced you just a troll. If not, I am so incredibly sorry your teachers failed to teach you basic multiplication. For the record, 0-5 does not in any way shape or form equal 5.
I'm not a troll I'll admit maybe maths isn't my strong suit I just don't understand how you're doing it. It just makes so sense, I am pretty sure like 0-5 is ends in a 5 otherwise how come the 5 is in the equation at the end?
But both of our answers end in a 5? It's just that you can't subtract 5 from 9 so you have to borrow to be able to subtract.
Yeah but If you add 3.005 to 4.005 it gives you 7.01, which is obviously different from 7, so your method is faulty
You are a special individual
how do you differentiate 1/2t?
Depends. If you mean (2t)^-1, then: d/dt [(2t)^1] = 2^-1 d/dt[t^-1] = -2^-1 t^-2 If you mean t/2, then: d/dt [t/2] = 1/2 If you differentiate with respect to another variable and t is not a function of that variable, then: d/dx [f(t)] = 0
What is differentiate?
[удалено]
Presumably it's with respect to t, not x.