/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13636391

70KiB, 715x591, MathQuestion.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Math smart people please explain this

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 15:52:47 2021 No.13636391 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13636437 >>13636469 >>13636474 >>13636728 >>13636744 >>13637014 >>13637072 >>13637139 >>13637474 >>13637858 >>13637888 >>13638882 >>13638989 >>13642795 >>13642822 >>13642847

I have a calculator and divide 1 over 2. The result is .5. Nice and clean and no extract decimal places needed.

Now I divide 1 over 3 and the result is .3333333333333333, seemingly to infinity without ever reaching a perfect 1/3 value.

I can cut a cake into perfect thirds but why can't this be done with arithmetic? Is our math flawed?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 16:06:08 No.13636437 Report

Quoted By: >>13636798

>>13636391
Prove that you can cut a cake into perfect non-theoretical thirds first.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 16:08:23 No.13636449 Report

Quoted By: >>13636469

Just change to base 3. Then 1/3 = 0.1

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 16:14:11 No.13636469 Report

Quoted By: >>13636757

>>13636449
this.
>>13636391
>Is our math flawed?
It could certainly use improvement, we've been conditioned to remain gauged unto the decad, which doesn't have the composites required (1,2,5,10) to express the cutting by the true 3rd. As above anon states base 3 can- base 12 (1,2,3,4,6,12) can. Additional note there is no 5 composite in base 12, which is why I think the babylonians went 12*5 -> base 60

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 16:15:57 No.13636474 Report

Quoted By:

>>13636391
>Now I divide 1 over 3 and the result is .3333333333333333
not quite. 0.333... =/= 0.333 with many many (finite) 3's at the end.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 17:49:33 No.13636728 Report

Quoted By: >>13637014

>>13636391
ughhh... it's all just semantics...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 17:53:31 No.13636744 Report

Quoted By:

>>13636391

Let's say you've got a cake that you want to cut into three parts. In the most practical way you want the cake to be cut along the lines of the numbers 3.2.4, with each part being exactly an inch thick.

You can easily cut the cake using the calculator, but what if the cake was a foot in diameter and you wanted the pieces to be two feet apart? You'd need a calculator with enough decimal places for you to calculate the right width of each piece of cake and then just slide them off the edge of the cake and trim them.

So you start to think about the number of decimal places you'd need. You know you need 2.2.4 decimal places, but would you need a calculator with a million places?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 17:59:59 No.13636757 Report

Quoted By: >>13636774

>>13636469
What about 7?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO base-420.gif, 1MiB, 408x377

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 18:05:15 No.13636774 Report

Quoted By: >>13636790 >>13636805

>>13636757
I was just researching that- looking for one smaller than base 420

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 18:08:34 No.13636790 Report

Quoted By:

>>13636774
probably could get away with base 210, but base 105 loses 2

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO cakein3slices.jpg, 61KiB, 633x401

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 18:12:53 No.13636798 Report

Quoted By: >>13638786

>>13636437

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO r3434.jpg, 7KiB, 215x234

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 18:15:09 No.13636805 Report

Quoted By:

>>13636774
420 seems like a fine base for musings of this sort.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 18:28:50 No.13636851 Report

Quoted By:

Math is arbitrary.
If we theoretically decided to measure a piece of cake by height, and it was one inch tall, then the three theoretically equal pieces cut from it would all measure .33333…. inches tall. However, if we measured the cake to be, say, 3 inches tall, then each one of the pieces would be exactly 1 inch tall. In the first situation we have an infinite cake and the second we have a perfectly finite one. This is because mathematics is a model of our reality, and reality is infinitely complex for human beings to observe.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1629812365837.gif, 243KiB, 420x544

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 19:17:18 No.13637014 Report

Quoted By:

>>13636391
you cant cut it into perfect thirds silly
1/3 is a concept that cant be replicated perfectly in the irl real world
>>13636728
this
math is retarded and so are you for being on this board and making this retarded thread

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO D63aUl-XkAIv9gL.png, 395KiB, 700x525

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 19:21:23 No.13637031 Report

Quoted By:

not again

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 349-3499010_345634546878-pepe-th (...).png, 267KiB, 420x420

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 19:24:57 No.13637043 Report

Quoted By: >>13637131

I guess this is now a metaphysic numbers thread again

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 19:34:18 No.13637072 Report

Quoted By: >>13637145

>>13636391
I will explain it as soon as you demonstrate how you can make an angle trisector using only a compass and straightedge.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 19:53:45 No.13637131 Report

Quoted By: >>13637500

>>13637043
You'll summon him at this rate

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 19:55:04 No.13637139 Report

Quoted By: >>13637446 >>13637465

>>13636391
wait until you see 1 / 7

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 19:55:41 No.13637145 Report

Quoted By:

>>13637072
General angle trisection barely has anything to do with splitting a circle in thirds

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 21:21:03 No.13637446 Report

Quoted By:

>>13637139
OMG!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 21:30:03 No.13637465 Report

Quoted By:

>>13637139
0.142857...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 21:33:08 No.13637474 Report

Quoted By: >>13637697

>>13636391
What's the rule? Decimal a/b in base b terminates if a and b have common factor?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO MMP-thoth-reaction.gif, 209KiB, 230x219

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 21:45:19 No.13637500 Report

Quoted By:

>>13637131

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Sep 2021 22:59:57 No.13637697 Report

Quoted By:

>>13637474
If a and b have a common factor, then the fraction is reducible. The rule is that given a fraction p/q in base b, the expansion terminates only if q's prime factorization can be found in any power of b's.
For example, 10 = 5 * 2, so the only expansions that terminate are powers of 2, powers of 5, and products between them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Sep 2021 00:11:42 No.13637858 Report

Quoted By: >>13638860

>>13636391
We chose base 10 because we have 10 fingers.
3 does not divide 10, so 1/3 will not have a finite representation in base 10.
If we chose a different base where 3 DOES divide the base, for example 12, then the representation of 1/3 WILL be represented in finite length.
You could choose an odd base and 1/2 WILL have infinite representation in that base.

The gist of it: 1/3 being represented as a string of infinite length has nothing to do with 1/3 itself, but it's an artifact of the base we chose. So it's an arbitrary choice that caused this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Sep 2021 00:22:55 No.13637888 Report

Quoted By:

>>13636391
https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/number/base-converter.html?x=0.7&sel1=10&sel2=16

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Sep 2021 05:57:06 No.13638786 Report

Quoted By: >>13638854

>>13636798
Now eat it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Sep 2021 06:27:10 No.13638854 Report

Quoted By:

>>13638786
>eating spike proteins

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Sep 2021 06:28:58 No.13638860 Report

Quoted By: >>13638885 >>13642888

>>13637858
Which base do we need to get rid of infinite remainder cancer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Sep 2021 06:36:56 No.13638882 Report

Quoted By:

>>13636391
Finally, an actual retard and not a midwit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Sep 2021 06:38:05 No.13638885 Report

Quoted By: >>13640862 >>13647382

>>13638860
Retvrn to tradition, base 60.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Sep 2021 07:15:17 No.13638989 Report

Quoted By:

>>13636391
>Is our math flawed?
Haven't you been reading news lately? Our math is racist, so that's why we can't divide 1 by 3 without the issue you described in your post.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Babylon-maths-return-to-tradition.gif, 3MiB, 640x640

Anonymous Tue 14 Sep 2021 19:26:07 No.13640862 Report

Quoted By:

>>13638885

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Sep 2021 08:53:58 No.13642795 Report

Quoted By: >>13642878

>>13636391
>I have a calculator
>I get 0.3333333333333
Here we go again…

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1611190962421.jpg, 143KiB, 1009x898

Anonymous Wed 15 Sep 2021 09:08:13 No.13642822 Report

Quoted By:

>>13636391
>Is our math flawed?
yes
>reals
ishiggydiggy
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Sep 2021 09:22:35 No.13642847 Report

Quoted By:

>>13636391
the base 10 number system is shit at dividing 3 6 of 9.
ancient humans had 6 fingers and a base 12 system which is far superior for understanding the universe.

also dont forget the binality of the computer your using can only be so precise

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Sep 2021 09:41:54 No.13642878 Report

Quoted By:

>>13642795
feel free to show us the non-3 digit

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Sep 2021 09:45:34 No.13642888 Report

Quoted By: >>13645983

>>13638860
There is no base that wont have an irrational number somewhere. It's just something we have to accept.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Sep 2021 23:13:56 No.13645983 Report

Quoted By:

>>13642888
a few would be ok, but what base 10 creates is awful

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Sep 2021 04:10:11 No.13647382 Report

Quoted By:

>>13638885
60/11 would be non-terminating in base 60.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches