My Math Forum (http://mymathforum.com/math-forums.php)
-   Math (http://mymathforum.com/math/)
-   -   0.33333333 (http://mymathforum.com/math/345650-0-33333333-a.html)

 sintan January 21st, 2019 03:54 AM

0.33333333

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.

 Micrm@ss January 21st, 2019 04:32 AM

Nice try. Troll is too obvious.

 sintan January 21st, 2019 04:39 AM

See - you can't answer 10 % 3 :giggle:

I also have another problem.
I have one slice of cake which mathematicians will argue is impossible to divide 100% equally between 3 people.

However I investigate with a fork and find the cake consists of 3000 equally sized crumbs. I give 1000 crumbs to each of my learned friends.

I have successfully divided 1 component part completely equally between 3 without giving anyone an infinitely reoccurring piece.

 Micrm@ss January 21st, 2019 04:44 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sintan (Post 604680) See - you can't answer 10 % 3 :giggle: I also have another problem. I have one slice of cake which mathematicians will argue is impossible to divide 100% equally between 3 people. However I investigate with a fork and find the cake consists of 3000 equally sized crumbs. I give 1000 crumbs to each of my learned friends. I have successfully divided 1 component part completely equally between 3 without giving anyone an infinitely reoccurring piece.
Cool. Find yourself a math journal and publish your groundbreaking discoveries. I agree 100% with what you say, so it's time to let the entire math world know they're doing it wrong for thousands of year.

 sintan January 21st, 2019 04:52 AM

MMF need to re-write their introductory email.

"We invite you to introduce yourself, and feel free to jump right in the discussions and make yourself at home.

We hope you enjoy your stay, and if you ever need anything, please let us know, we are here to help!"

They should included an addendum. 'Post anything philosophical and you'll be politely told to F off'.

10 % 3 - still waiting.....

 Micrm@ss January 21st, 2019 05:00 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sintan (Post 604682) 10 % 3 - still waiting.....
Keep waiting. I can't explain it. Nobody can. It's something that escaped the minds of millions of mathematicians worldwide. And you found it! Go publish it!

 sintan January 21st, 2019 05:08 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Micrm@ss (Post 604683) Keep waiting. I can't explain it.
I rest my case.

 JeffM1 January 21st, 2019 05:15 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sintan (Post 604678) 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 scientist 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.
That you refuse to accept something carries no weight whatsoever.

You are correct: decimal representation is mostly approximate. There is no physical possibility of representing exactly in decimal notation the fraction

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

According to you, that means one third does not exist. Let's follow that logic a bit further.

Please provide an exact physical representation of God.

If you can't, then according to your logic, God does not exist.

Case closed in favor of atheism. (By the way, I am not an atheist.)

 sintan January 21st, 2019 05:25 AM

Hi Jeff and thank you for a reply free from sarcasm.

I find it strange that we base our whole mathematical system whereby decimal representation is mostly approximate.

Especially since this underpins many aspects of science and all 'proved' theorems.

I believe the whole representation of integers needs to be torn up and revisited.
This conclusion must have been reached by many and I was interested if anyone had experimented with an alternative system.

If someone tells me something is not perfect but it's the best they can come up with my natural instinct is to investigate a way to make it perfect.

 Micrm@ss January 21st, 2019 05:32 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sintan (Post 604686) Hi Jeff and thank you for a reply free from sarcasm.
Hey man, if you want a reply that is free from sarcasm, then make a better OP.
Don't start your OP with "I refuse to accept this fact that millions of mathematicians have thought about and accepted" or other dogma's.
Maybe start you're OP with "I don't understand .... and .... because .... Please explain it". You'll get a very different reaction.

Test it yourself. Go to the medicine department of your local university and introduce yourself by "I refuse to accept vaccines work" vs "Can you explain me how vaccines work". See what answer you'll get!

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:09 PM.