My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

Math General Math Forum - For general math related discussion and news


Thanks Tree22Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
January 22nd, 2019, 12:58 AM   #31
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 20,469
Thanks: 2038

Quote:
Originally Posted by sintan View Post
I think this thread proves that statement as factually correct. What's your point?
I was asking you about your initial wording (not making a point). Can you answer in relation to that, bearing in mind that your reason(s) for the wording of your opening post couldn't have been based on replies that hadn't been posted at the time?
skipjack is offline  
 
January 22nd, 2019, 01:27 AM   #32
Newbie
 
Joined: Jan 2019
From: UK

Posts: 18
Thanks: 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
I was asking you about your initial wording (not making a point). Can you answer in relation to that, bearing in mind that your reason(s) for the wording of your opening post couldn't have been based on replies that hadn't been posted at the time?
You were only selectively quoting and paraphrasing.

'I don't know' doesn't appear in the OP and the whole sentence you quoted only the end of was;

'I refuse to accept that a number can be reoccurring and that this evidences the fact our numbering language is fundamentally flawed.'

The fact a number can be reoccurring in our recognised mathematically language is not unchecked grounds.
sintan is offline  
January 22nd, 2019, 01:30 AM   #33
Newbie
 
Joined: Jan 2019
From: UK

Posts: 18
Thanks: 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
Your "nettle" is a vacuous statement designed with the sole purpose of initiating some kind of polarizing argument.

Call me what you want but you are still, by definition, a Troll.

-Dan
Incorrect. By definition, a successful Troll. I have elicited 5 responses from you.
sintan is offline  
January 22nd, 2019, 02:48 AM   #34
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,634
Thanks: 2620

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by sintan View Post
'I refuse to accept that a number can be reoccurring and that this evidences the fact our numbering language is fundamentally flawed.'

The fact a number can be reoccurring in our recognised mathematically language is not unchecked grounds.
But you are not equipped to pass judgement on whether that makes it "fundamentally flawed". That was inflammatory phrasing.
v8archie is offline  
January 22nd, 2019, 03:58 AM   #35
Newbie
 
Joined: Jan 2019
From: UK

Posts: 18
Thanks: 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
But you are not equipped to pass judgement on whether that makes it "fundamentally flawed". That was inflammatory phrasing.
Inflammatory to who; the God of maths?

You yourself stated that the mathematics community was more open to questions than that of theology. I'm not so sure.

If maths is a system that exists outside of real world situations aren't mathematicians just advanced coders? Now that is inflammatory!
sintan is offline  
January 22nd, 2019, 04:11 AM   #36
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 20,469
Thanks: 2038

Quote:
Originally Posted by sintan View Post
I refuse to accept that a number can be reoccurring and that this evidences the fact our numbering language is fundamentally flawed.
That was your entire initial sentence. Perhaps you misworded it. As it stands, it uses the word 'reoccurring', but I suspect you meant 'recurring'. Also, it seems to intend (albeit with poor grammar) that your refusal to accept something is a sufficient ground to establish as fact that a fundamental flaw exists in the numbering language that you and others use. Interpreted more literally, it would mean roughly the opposite of that. Either way, you don't seem to have given a ground that could be checked and had been checked prior to when you made your post.

I didn't state that 'I don't know' appeared in any post. However, your later reference to yourself as agnostic suggested that 'I don't know' was your default position.

You referred to something (it's not clear what exactly) as a fact without having given any clear reason for using the word 'fact'. Also, you used the word 'fundamental' without giving any reason for doing so. What adjective would you use to describe a flaw that isn't fundamental and what determines which adjective is appropriate?
skipjack is offline  
January 22nd, 2019, 04:37 AM   #37
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,634
Thanks: 2620

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by sintan View Post
You yourself stated that the mathematics community was more open to questions than that of theology. I'm not so sure.

If maths is a system that exists outside of real world situations aren't mathematicians just advanced coders? Now that is inflammatory!
Your opening sentence wasn't a question and didn't ask for enlightenment either.

No. Mathematicians aren't coders - advanced or otherwise. It seems to me a bit like suggesting that car mechanics are just advanced drivers.
v8archie is offline  
January 22nd, 2019, 06:39 AM   #38
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,138
Thanks: 872

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sintan View Post
I refuse to accept that a number can be reoccurring and that this evidences the fact our numbering language is fundamentally flawed.

If a calculation computes a reoccurring number, it is impossible to either count up or down from it without knowing where the number terminates.

The imbalance between these simple statements also bothers me.

Even + even = Even
Odd + Odd = Even
Even + Odd = Odd

Has there been any exploration into an alternate numbering language/system?

I’m agnostic, but feel scientists are the first to poke fun at religious beliefs. They should get their own house in order first because you can’t give me a straight answer to 10 % 3.

With 6 of the millennium problems unsolvable to two following statements are equally true.

Religion doesn’t have all the answers.
Science doesn’t have all the answers.
I may have posted several times but you'll never have my heart.

How can you not understand the difference between a Mathematician's concept of 1/3 as being an exact quantity no matter the number of decimal places and the Scientist's concept of measuring 1/3 only up to a given precision? If decimals bother you, then use 1/3. If exact numbers bother you, then use 0.3333333333. This is a non-issue.

And, really, the whole even/odd thing? How can this possibly be an actual issue? You've been confrontational about this whole thread. You aren't really asking anything and don't seem to be doing much listening when others make a statement unless you feel you can twist it into something you believe is going to support your (as I said before) vacuous OP. Just as a Troll would do.

Quote:
Has there been any exploration into an alternate numbering language/system?
I'll give you this... This is actually a good question. But based on what I've seen in this thread you are ill-equipped to receive an answer that you will be able to understand. (The short answer is "yes." For the actual answer, we'll have to wait for you to finish a unit on Axiomatic Set Theory.)


Someone please close down this thread. And with that I'm out and to paraphrase, in terms of religion, I'm shaking your dust off my feet.

-Dan

Last edited by skipjack; January 22nd, 2019 at 08:43 AM.
topsquark is offline  
January 22nd, 2019, 07:33 AM   #39
Newbie
 
Joined: Jan 2019
From: UK

Posts: 18
Thanks: 0

Ok let me straighten this out.

I have no mathematical education beyond GCSE’s as I’m sure is abundantly evident.

I’m a 35 year old Project Manager and have never needed a higher understanding of math vocationally.

For me it’s about curiosity. The recurring decimal is the itch that I can never quite scratch. It frequents my dreams and invades my meditations. It’s the blot on my copy book, the fly in the ointment, the Ringo to my Paul McCartney.

My post wasn’t meant to antagonize, insult or perturb. It was more of a ‘hey – what gives?’

I just cannot sate the feeling that the mathematics that underpins so many of the foundations on which we build our lives, so harmoniously accepts this troublesome and unsolvable conundrum. 1/3 isn’t 0.3333.

They are not the same – they are not factually correct. They are approximate. 0.3333 is not a real number, it’s not measurable, it’s not accountable, in pure terms it’s fantasy. It’s a number that has no end, it’s an impossible event.

Yet if I ask someone, ‘hey man, nice brogues, what’s ten divided by three?’ they will surely retort ‘ Why it’s 3.3333 recurring my good man’. What filth is this number!

That’s why the language of math puzzles me. The most erudite minds can easily stomach the implausibility of its mechanisms. It feels like a giant rouse that everyone’s in on.

I have learnt several languages (badly) and read music and each have their own foibles and curiosities. But not claim absoluteness like math does.

I just don’t get how people can be satisfied whilst the recurring decimal is always there, mocking, taunting, existing.
sintan is offline  
January 22nd, 2019, 08:16 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,310
Thanks: 551

I shall try to answer.

No one says that

$\dfrac{1}{3} = 0.3333.$

People do say

$\dfrac{1}{3} = 0.3.....$

What does that mean? It means that it would take an infinite number of digits to express one third in decimal notation. Thus, for practical purposes, decimal notation is not exact with respect to fractions.

But decimal notation of fractions is not fundamental to math. It can be dispensed with entirely.

And in terms of practical applications of math, we can get a decimal expression for one third that has no observable error in practice.

Decimal representation of fractions is a useful approximation for some practical purposes, nothing more.
JeffM1 is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math



Thread Tools
Display Modes






Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.