Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
There is no function there, only an equation. And there is a single variable, "x", that represents the price of the book.
"x = 1 + ½x" is the same as "the price of the book is $1, plus half of the price of the book".
Ok, call it an equation or a function, it doesn't matter what it is called, the point was that the original comment is only true for the value that was used.
In the original comment we have "x = 1 + ½x" and the example used was with a cost of two (x=2) to show that the equation was true (ending in 2=2).
However if 4 is used instead (x=4) then we have ( 4 = 1 + ½[4] ) which results in an inequality (4=3) which is false.
Which is why I initially commented with a different letter on either side of the equal sign.
If you prefer to only put the value of x on the right side on the equal sign and not the left side, then a common notation for that is f(x) = 1 + ½x, which is also referred to as function notation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)
What it is called does matter because a function obligatorily maps one set of values into another set of values, and that is not what I was doing because IDGAF about a full set dammit, but a single value that symbolises a price where OP's statement is true.
As even 11yos know, but apparently not you, you don't solve an equation (or a set of equations) by arbitrarily assigning values to the variable.
Congrats for not getting a value but a slope. 👍 /s
Juuuuuuuuuuuuust in case that your confusion is related to my usage of "→": it's clear by context that the symbol is being used for "implies".
So after rereading the original post (which could have been written clearer) I think your equation in your original comment is written in a way that doesn't reflect the original post.
According to the original post the right side of the equal sign is cost plus half of the cost where cost is defined as $1. So then the equation would be x = 1+ ½(1) which solves to x = 1.5.
You are correct that assigning arbitrary values is not how to solve an equation (at least by hand), but I wasn't trying to solve the equation, I was showing that the equation as written would not be true unless 2 was used.
Since the "→" notation is an alternative notation for a function, it made reading the math in your posts and the words in your posts contradictory. It would seem that you didn't read the Wikipedia link since the "→" notation is described there.
Okay... I'll stop reading here.
The original post is clear as day, even with the spelling mistake.
There's a certain level of lack of basic reasoning that I'm still willing to play along with; but this comment is past that. Not bothering further with you.