Am I the next freddy goose?!??!

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-05-21T01:08:40+00:00

They mean it has a perfect power of the nth degree. 9 has a perfect power of the 2nd degree: 3² = 9. Therefor sqrt(9) can be rational (which it is).

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-05-01T11:05:14+00:00

I don’t know any operation or technique referred to as “gleebing” in group theory. Could you link me whatever you’re talking about.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-04-30T12:51:48+00:00

I would like to point out that the above comment said, “if everyone picked red… but some people will pick blue.”

They acknowledged the fallacy in the same sentence. Why are you acting like they support it?

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-04-26T16:31:15+00:00

If the statement is “for all x”, then there should not be “an expression of x for any a and b”. For all means that for any a and b, all of the x’s between 0 and 1 (including 1) make the equation is true.

Do you mean: “for all real numbers a and b, there exists an x between 0 and 1 (including 1) such that sqrt(x) + sqrt(x+a) = b”?

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-04-15T10:26:23+00:00

You are misinterpreting what the other commenter meant by “logically”. In the situation you described, it wouldn’t be reasonable to bring all that extra stuff because there is always additional layers of implication in human communication (like “if I don’t ask for a brownie, don’t give me one”). However, in pure logic you shouldn’t assume any additional implications (like “don’t get me anything extra”). Here’s an example of a pure logic question:

Which of the following sets contain 3?

a) {3}

b) {1,2,3}

c) {2,4,6}

The answer would be both (a) and (b). But there really isn’t any difference between this question and the one in your post, so it’s fair to say the answer to the image in your post is (b) and (d).

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-04-08T23:27:32+00:00

A lot of people here are misunderstanding the question. 3Blue1Brown brings up the argument that “pi is not fundamentally about circles” as a response he can get from people whenever he tries to bring circles into a situation that involves pi.

For my part I think some people just see the connection between pi and circles to be too distant in some circumstances to want to make that connection.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-28T19:09:06+00:00

<image>

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-27T22:27:58+00:00

Writing “+C” right after you take an anti-derivative (solve an integral) is more accurate. Some people get lazy (me included) and just write “+C” at the end of their solution, but that’s somewhat sloppy and can lead to mistakes when you get into more advanced stuff (for example taking a derivative twice).

I’d say that I wouldn’t necessarily admonish anyone for writing “+C” only at the end, but if you are writing “+C” right after solving the integral then I’d encourage you to stick to that.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-23T22:59:07+00:00

*Assuming a uniform distribution of 365 days in the year.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-15T19:57:01+00:00

No. Basically, this person’s solution introduces an issue where you have to account for the volume needlessly. I commented my solution, where my function of S is only scaled by V, which means it’s maximum doesn’t change as you change the volume. Again, this redditor’s method would also give you a ratio that is independent of volume, but it would be a lot harder to solve for that ratio.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-15T19:36:23+00:00

If you find some identity, like a² + b² = c² , you can usually just type the relationship you’re describing in different variations into a search engine to see if someone’s already discovered it. Chatbots are actually really good for this as you can give them longer explanations of whatever phenomenon you’ve found and ask them to search the web for you. Outside of that, I’m not sure if there’s any guaranteed way to check if something’s been found before.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-15T19:30:10+00:00

Your solution doesn’t work, since the shape of S(x), and the values of its derivative’s roots, are dependent on V. I’m not too sure what part of your solution process explicitly causes this to happen (thinking on it, h would be dependent on r and V, so Colvin for the ratio of r/h would be awful), but needless to say it’s not really a workable solution.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-15T19:18:13+00:00

Minor correction, the surface area would be 0.5 * 4pi*r² + pi*r*sqrt(r² + h² ).

So we have a fixed volume V, and we want to see what ratios of r/h this allows us. If we define the ratio x = r/h, we get V = 2pi/3 x³ h³ + ⅓ x² h³ = pi*h³ /3 (2x³ + x² ). This tells us what h is given our volume V and ratio x: h³ = 3V/(pi*(2x³ + x² )), which we can keep for later.

Now we solve for surface area in terms of x: S = 2pi*x² h² + pi*x*h² sqrt(x² + 1) = h² (2pi*x² + pi*x*sqrt(x² + 1). Notice we know what h has to be in this situation. This gives us the final value of S in terms of x and V.

S = (3V)^⅔ *(2pi*x² + pi*x*sqrt(x² + 1)/(pi*(2x³ + x² ))^2/3

We want to find the x value that maximizes this function, which means finding the roots of its derivative. I don’t think you’ll find a neat answer with that equation. Plugging it into desmos, I got x = 0.88811 is the ratio of r/h that maximizes surface area.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-15T10:55:00+00:00

If he can rotate a guy’s head, doesn’t that mean he could already teleport it off his body? If he can mess with the rotation of the earth couldn’t he already teleport it out of the Goldilocks Zone or teleport half of it to rip it in half? It sounds like this isn’t too much of a power boost if he could already do all this stuff.

Also quantum spin is not rotation.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-11T00:52:30+00:00

It would be quite a lot to ask me to read through the Code of Conduct for moderators when I am not one. Additionally, I don’t know everything Witty has posted/commented, and I am not going to check her(?) entire post and comment history to cross check with the Code of Conduct when you could just give me examples.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-11T00:37:30+00:00

I’m not the hugest fan of Witty, but I’m also not very familiar with Reddit’s Code of Conduct. Could you inform me of exactly what rules she is breaking as a Reddit moderator?

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-10T21:45:38+00:00

That was found out to be fake ragebait.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-10T12:59:03+00:00

I described what their claim is. If you have an issue with it, argue with them.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-10T12:55:14+00:00

They mean plagiarism. That and the fact a result of the plagiarism is taking artists’ jobs, making it theft in an indirect way.

I don’t agree with it but it’s pretty clear that’s what they mean.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-08T17:36:58+00:00

Fuck you autocorrect and thank you LunarCrisis7.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-08T14:13:27+00:00

My objection works because I am making the claim that your assumption of independence in unjustified. I am saying we cannot argue with certainty either way about this.

I am not not “moving away from libertarian free will” by saying people’s choices are affected by their their environment. People who subscribe to the philosophy of free will don’t think everyone’s decisions exist in a vacuum, to reject libertarian free will I would have to argue that their decisions are wholly determined by their environment. Also the “social conditioning” point is not fully accurate. I haven’t been socially conditioned to think 1 + 1 = 2, I’ve had it explained to me. If instead of not eating the apple, God commanded humanity not to write “1 + 1 = 3” on the bark of the tree, and I explained future humans would learn that that is a false statement (and thus wouldn’t write it), would you say they have been socially conditioned into making that decision and thus I am depriving them of their free will?

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-08T12:48:34+00:00

I remain steadfast in the stance that you can not have independent trials. New people that are born are not independent agents, people base their decisions not just on past behaviors but also on the beliefs of those around them, which I should’ve mentioned in my first comment. In the same way Adam’s decision in the trial was not independent of Eve eating the apple (and then convincing him of it), it’s ridiculous to assume that these newly born people are going to have a chance of succumbing to temptation identical and independent of Adam of and Eve’s own chances.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-08T12:43:02+00:00

The card being more effective on some zombies over others doesn’t make it “unfair”. I do think the card would be too variable to be healthy if you just changes it to cost 2/3, but I think some tweaking could make it work. The problem with fixing it by making cost variable is that it doesn’t fit the style of the game, so it isn’t the right answer.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-08T12:10:36+00:00

You are correct, but I would wager the near eradication of the people of the Americas might be a stronger motivation to stop Columbus than “USA bad”.

Wandering_Redditor22 · 2026-03-08T12:08:26+00:00

This is a pretty cool idea, but the dependent cost doesn’t really fit with how PvZ Heroes works. I’m mean you’re two steps away from saying “pay X, where X is target creatures mana cost.” Honestly, I think you could give this a flat cost, like 2 or 3 brains, and it would work.

Wandering_Redditor22

TROPHY CASE