4 ms·
I appreciate that this is likely trivial for mathematicians. For me, I was quite lost. Something I found a bit more obvious was constantly dividing a squares si
by formula1 10y ago
I appreciate that this is likely trivial for mathematicians. For me, I was quite lost. Something I found a bit more obvious was constantly dividing a squares sides into two. When done infinite amount of times, getting the perimeter of the shape would equal 2xpixr
- masterjack 10y agoI don't think anyone would call it trivial; it might be that the submitter erroneously translates elementary as trivial. Here elementary means that it doesn't use higher math (calculus, analysis, etc), it doesn't say anything about ease or complication, and indeed the elementary proof of the prime number theorem is hella complicated.