> Tfw you'll never know the exact number of Avogadro

>>9003044
6.022*10^23

>>9003049
4 significant figures aren't even close to 23 bruh

>tfw you'll never know the exact number of Avocados

>>9003044
I'm ok with this.

>tfw youll knever now the exact number of pie

>>9003044
>tfw you will never square the circle

>>9003044
Its clearly defined as the number of carbon 12 atoms in exactly 12 grams of carbon 12 what more do you want

>>9003294
>number of carbon 12 atoms
>12 grams
>implying any ""definition"" equating natural and """"""""real"""""""" numbers can be considered ""clear""

>>9003054
Design an experiment to measure the exact number

>>9003308
>implying i know what your retarded made up math jargon means

>>9003308
no reals involved, autismburger

File: ayylmao.png (308KB, 510x616px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 510x616px

>>9003044
>Avogadro's constant
Why did people stick with this completely useless concept?

>>9003336
> made up math jargon
Fuck you, for that I'm going to ignore reality and redefine Avogadro's number to be exactly [math]6.02214X×10^{23}[/math] and get the SI to make my definition official by late 2018.

Now I just have to decide what those digits X should be.

There are no physical relations with easy experiments which give the number of avogadro ?

>>9003294
>tfw you'll never know the exact mass of carbon 12

>>9003044
There can be only one...

>>9003787
It masses exactly ctmus.

>>9004124
Fucked that up.

It masses exactly one ctmu.