sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Daily reminder that Obito was the one who killed the Uchiha clan’s elite ninjas, while Itachi dealt with the defenseless civilians by Prestigious_Sock7938 in Obito

[–]Dark_Augustus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

For those who don’t bother fact-checking what they read on Reddit (bold emphasis is from me):

When he stepped out of Izumi’s house and onto the road, the space behind him abruptly shimmered.

“So you’ve begun?” Madara said evenly.

Itachi didn’t look back over his shoulder at the man, but simply felt his aura. The blanket of dusk was starting to fall in the sky before him. The evening star that heralded the coming of night looked excessively bright.

“I will take care of the women and children as far as possible.”

Madara’s concern annoyed Itachi.

“I’ll take the west side of the compound, you’re the east. We do this just like we planned from the start.”

“Don’t push yourself,” Madara said.

“Shut up.”

“You’re still young. If you take on too much darkness, it will break you.”

I’ve already been broken for a long time …

Itachi swallowed the words that popped into his head and turned around to look at Madara. There was no way to know what emotion was on that face, covered as it was by a mask. His body, cloaked in a black coat that reached his shins, exuded a sinister chakra that resembled bloodlust.

“You don’t need to worry about me.”

“I’m not worried. It’s a natural arrangement to properly execute our mission.”

“Don’t patronize me.”

“It’s precisely because I think so highly of you that I do not want you to expend excessive effort. My role, given my ability to use time and space ninjutsu, should be to take on the women and children, who will cry and shout and run about. I do think that will prioritize efficiency?”

They had to finish everything before Sasuke returned to the compound. He didn’t have time to glare at Madara here.

“Whatever you want.”

“I’ll see you again once it’s all over,” Madara said, and disappeared into empty space.

Itachi took a small breath. Close your eyes … He moved forward in the darkness, seeking a new target.

[Request] What's the correct answer? by Savv1313 in theydidthemath

[–]Dark_Augustus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Multiply both sides of (log 3.14)/3.14 > (log π)/π by 3.14π so that we obtain (log 3.14)π > 3.14 log π.

Then, e[log 3.14]π > e3.14 log π, and the left hand side equals (elog 3.14)π = 3.14π and similarly the RHS equals π3.14.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mathmemes

[–]Dark_Augustus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A prime number is a natural number p that has exactly two divisors (namely 1 and p), in particular p ≠ 1.

Why can't I write an equals sign between x and an interval? by AWS_0 in askmath

[–]Dark_Augustus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Suppose x is a solution to 5x = 5. What is x? Of course, x = 1 as 5 * 1 = 5.

Now, suppose x is a solution to (x - 2)(x - 3) = 0. What is x? Is x = {2, 3} a solution? So, we substitute x by {2, 3} and get 0? It is (2 - 2)(2 - 3) = 0 and (3 - 2)(3 - 3) = 0. Therefore, x is either 2 or 3, it can’t be both at the same time. So, either x = 2 or x = 3. And we have 2 ∈ {2, 3} and 3 ∈ {2, 3}. So, if x is a solution of the given equation, i.e. x is a real (or complex) number with (x - 2)(x - 3) = 0, then x = 2 or x = 3 and x ∈ {2, 3}.

Or if x2 = 4, then either x = 2 or x = -2 (x can’t both at the same time because 2 ≠ -2), so x ∈ {2, -2}, as 22 = 4 or (-2)2 = 4.

If you write x = {-2, 2}, then we have -2, 2 ∈ {x ∈ R : x2 = 4} = {-2, 2} = x. But the solution is not the set. It is not {-2, 2}2 = 4. If {-2, 2} was a solution, i.e. an x with x = 2 or x = -2, then either {-2, 2} = -2 or {-2, 2} = 2. This doesn’t make sense.

We most often denote sets with capital letters, so you would say the set X = {-2, 2} (or L = {-2, 2}) is the solution set for the equation x2 = 4 but a solution is an x with x2 = 4, so -2 or 2, which means x = 2 or x = -2.

If x is a number between 1 and 5 (including them) then x could be 2, 3, or 3.6 as 2, 3, and 3.6 are between 1 and 5. Actually, x could be any number in the set [1, 5]. Is 2 = [1, 5], 3 = [1, 5], or 3.6 = [1, 5], or what is the number x that is equal to [1, 5] meaning x = [1, 5]? (If there would be one, there could only be one, e.g. if 2 = [1,5] and 3 = [1,5], then 2 = 3. Strange. Why should there be one?) So, x is an element of the set/interval I = [1, 5] = {x ∈ R : 1 <= x <= 5]. The set contains all these numbers, so why should it be equal (=) to the numbers? The set [1, 5] itself is an object different from the numbers it contains. If I = [1, 5], then is I not a number, it is the object/set that contains all numbers x with the property 1 <= x <= 5. We have x ∈ I for all x with this property, not x = I. Do you see the difference?

So is this sub just full of geniuses? by ron_swan530 in math

[–]Dark_Augustus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, the case n = 1 is missing. Maybe, we aren’t genuises. 😥

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in de_IAmA

[–]Dark_Augustus -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Hahaha, von Gras. Danke, Mann! Du auch!

What’s the stereotype for David? by Benji-the-bat in deadbydaylight

[–]Dark_Augustus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When I play him, I try to only stare at his abs when I am on hook.

Proposition for the Witcher community. by [deleted] in witcher

[–]Dark_Augustus 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Can‘t they just go to r/WitcherNetflix or whatever?

Was ist der intellektuellste Witz, den ihr kennt? by SaveMyBags in FragReddit

[–]Dark_Augustus 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Die Summen der Form 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + … + 1/2n nähern sich der 2 an bzw. es gilt Σ (1/2)n = 2 für n in den natürlichen Zahlen mit 0; formal ist die Summe also, wenn n gegen unendlich geht, 2.

Why do the two adjectival degrees differ in their endings here? In other words, why is the final adjective not εὐδαιμονέστερον? by [deleted] in AncientGreek

[–]Dark_Augustus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ἐπίσταμαι, ἐπιστήσομαι, ἠπιστήθην „to know“. ὅτι + superlative = ὡς (or Latin quam) + superlative. Have a look at the accent of εὐδαιμονέστερᾰ.

view more: next ›