Darkassassin07

Yeah, that justifies putting explosives in thousands of devices shipped to civilians and/or used directly in the vicinity of civilians; causing thousands of innocent people to be injured and killed indiscriminately.

Fuck off.

This was an act of pure terrorism, ~~and (another) clear violation of the Geneva conventions.~~

Complicity.

Lmao, well played.

You claim they are off by a factor of 2x (5x instead of 3x) while they are only off by a paltry 2 units.

I claimed the original x3 multiplication is actually x5, then stated further multiplications were off by 2.

Again 100% true. Nothing I've said in this thread is untrue. Instead you've applied my comments to a question that was not asked; "what singular equation describes this behaviour?" then tried to shit on me for 'incorrectly' answering this question I had nothing to do with.

The original 1 -> 5 is indeed x5. No matter what pedantic bullshit you pull out of your ass, 1 x 5 still equals 5. Regardless of which equations you decide to use to arrive at that answer; 5 is still 5 times greater than 1. That's all I had stated, yet you claim this is wrong, because it doesn't conform to your own personal reality.

The original math was also off by two, as 1x5 = 1x3+2 but that doesn't invalidate the fact that it's x5 instead of just x3. Two things can be true at the same time. Wild.

Just because I didn't use a singular equation doesn't make that math wrong.

It's been entirely your prerogative to change the topic and limit this to a singular equation like this is an exam in some high school math class. Nobody asked what the equation that describes this behavior is; that was all you, relentlessly pushing your own desires upon others.

All I did/am here for was to show that this image is not x3 the previous; nor was the original set of posts. Use whatever equations you like, this image is still not 3x as many triangles as previous.

You’ve failed your math assignment.

TF are you talking about?

OP had an assignment: post 3x as many triangles.

I never had any assignment, I simply posted a couple equations illustrating how that has not happened.

Stating what singular equation covers every case is entirely your prerogative.

Taking a triangle and making it into a tri-force = 5 times as many triangles, not 3.

Correct. 1 * 5 = 5. Which is also equivalent to 1*3+2, though simpler.

Then taking that and making it into further ti-forces is x3+2

Correct.

You've failed your math assignment.

Correct. The above image is not 3x as many triangles as the previous post.

So once again, which part of this is wrong?

What a fucked up way to explain a simple thing, while making yourself wrong at the same time…

Just because I typed it differently than you would have doesn't make the math suddenly wrong. I never said I was defining rules. Nor trying to narrow them down to a single rule. That was entirely your initiative.

I was simply showing how far away from "x3" it was; which in the first instance "x5" illustrates that point better.

Because that was a simpler equation to read and equate to x3.

1x3+2 = 5 = 1*5. They are equivalent.

I said ONE triangle turned into a triforce is 5 times as many triangles as you started with.

Regardless of which equation you use, that is true. Your really that pissed off I showed the simpler equation for a single instance??

I explicitly stated the rule for following equations; to show, regardless, that it's incorrect.

Nothing I have said is untrue. You're just being a pedantic asshole.

Even then, the overall shape forms a new triangle. x3+1

Taking a triangle and making it into a tri-force = 5 times as many triangles, not 3.

Then taking that and making it into further ti-forces is x3+2

Which part of this statement is incorrect?

At no point have I said further equations are also x5, only the original; 1*5=5.

AGAIN try actually reading the comments you reply to.

Here, maybe some pictures will get it through your thick skull.

One triangle:

Five triangles:

A triangle made into a tri-force equals five times as many triangles.

From there, it becomes x3+2 (Ie: what my original comment, which you failed to read, said.)

1 -> 5 -> 17