balderdash@lemmy.zip to memes@lemmy.world · edit-211 months agoEDIT: I THINK I STAND CORRECTEDlemmy.zipimagemessage-square219fedilinkarrow-up1327arrow-down153file-text
arrow-up1274arrow-down1imageEDIT: I THINK I STAND CORRECTEDlemmy.zipbalderdash@lemmy.zip to memes@lemmy.world · edit-211 months agomessage-square219fedilinkfile-text
I considered deleting the post, but this seems more cowardly than just admitting I was wrong. But TIL something!
minus-squareleave_it_blank@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·11 months agoYes, the amount of both stacks is infinity. The question was not “What stack is easier to pay for something with”.
minus-squareCaveman@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·10 months agoBoth are equally easy to pay with since ∞ - X = ∞ if we disregard that 100s are more convenient way to pay for cars.
minus-squareEmergMemeHologram@startrek.websitelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·10 months agoI bet you’ll get more questions buying a car with 100s than if you bought it with singles. In Canada the $100 would be more convenient because we only gave $1 in coin form, which would be hella annoying to lug around.
Yes, the amount of both stacks is infinity. The question was not “What stack is easier to pay for something with”.
Both are equally easy to pay with since ∞ - X = ∞ if we disregard that 100s are more convenient way to pay for cars.
I bet you’ll get more questions buying a car with 100s than if you bought it with singles.
In Canada the $100 would be more convenient because we only gave $1 in coin form, which would be hella annoying to lug around.