Quote from: SecondClass on February 06, 2017, 03:11:32 PM

EVEN IF IT WAS ENDLESS, it does not equal 1/3. It will always have infinitely less decimal places than it needs to be 1/3.

won't there will always be the precise number of decimal places needed

because it's endless

Quote

If you need clarification to the second paragraph, I don't know what to tell you.

oh good, because i do

you tell me, "sorry for typing a sentence that reads like it was written by a 9 year old," and then you clarify

No, it will always be infinitely less than than the number of decimal places needed, because you can't express 1/3 as a number. No matter how far you measure it, the "decimal form" (which shouldn't exist) of 1/3 will ALWAYS be less than the expression. You could go on eternally, for all of time and then some, and it would never, ever, ever be 1/3.

Look, this isn't hard. All I'm saying is that the decimal form of 1/3 (or any repeating numbers) don't exist in the physical world because the more you measured it, the bigger it would get. Look at conservation of matter to see why that's impossible.

If what you're stuck on is the "gets bigger" part (really?), then just look at how a repeating number works. The more you measure it (.333 vs .333333), the larger it becomes.

They're equal, it's just because we're working in base 10 which is rather flawed.

What number would you add to 3.999... to get to 4?

No, it will always be infinitely less than than the number of decimal places needed, because you can't express 1/3 as a number. No matter how far you measure it, the "decimal form" (which shouldn't exist) of 1/3 will ALWAYS be less than the expression. You could go on eternally, for all of time and then some, and it would never, ever, ever be 1/3.

but wouldn't that only apply if you stopped counting decimals at any point

which you can't do if we're talking about an endless repeating decimal

Look, this isn't hard. All I'm saying is that the decimal form of 1/3 (or any repeating numbers) don't exist in the physical world because the more you measured it, the bigger it would get. Look at conservation of matter to see why that's impossible.

is it getting "bigger" or do we just have a more precise measurement

when we express 3/10 as .3, we assume that the following decimal points are all 0, right

but in the real world, it could be 0.30000010000000100000200001

we don't really account for small imperfections because they're not significant enough

If what you're stuck on is the "gets bigger" part (really?), then just look at how a repeating number works. The more you measure it (.333 vs .333333), the larger it becomes.

i understand what you mean now--you were just being insanely inarticulate

i believe what you're attempting to describe is called an asymptote

They are identical, only because there's no way to tell the difference. Sorry, I can understand math but can't explain it well. I understand your position and why it's right.

no, i thought the point was that there was literally no difference

not even a small one

they're identical numbers

3.9 recurring and 4 are the same number.

Quote from: Naru on February 06, 2017, 03:41:47 PM

god this is where my knowledge of calc would help but fuck calc 2 gave me cancer and ptsd to even bother explaining

Everyone says calc 3 is the hardest but calc 2 took me in a dark alley and fucked me like a little bitch.

what makes it so difficult

Quote from: Naru on February 06, 2017, 03:41:47 PM

god this is where my knowledge of calc would help but fuck calc 2 gave me cancer and ptsd to even bother explaining

Everyone says calc 3 is the hardest but calc 2 took me in a dark alley and fucked me like a little bitch.

calc 2 was the worst, calc 3 is looking very promising to me.

I'm glad I dropped maths instead of forcing myself to go all the way through A levels doing it

i have the proof somewhere in my calc II notebook saying .999999 (repeating) is 1. but i doubt class would bother even seeing it

Quote from: Naru on February 07, 2017, 12:46:43 PM

i have the proof somewhere in my calc II notebook saying .999999 (repeating) is 1. but i doubt class would bother even seeing it

post it for me then fampai

can i post it on discord? i dont wanna use imgur from my phone

Quote from: Naru on February 07, 2017, 12:48:26 PM

Quote from: LC on February 07, 2017, 12:47:52 PM

Quote from: Naru on February 07, 2017, 12:46:43 PM

i have the proof somewhere in my calc II notebook saying .999999 (repeating) is 1. but i doubt class would bother even seeing it

post it for me then fampai

can i post it on discord? i dont wanna use imgur from my phone

sure

i'm not part of the .999999... =/= 1 crowd, i just wanted to read it

there was also another proof the teacher did to say it equaled 1, but i didnt understand it since he skipped steps which didnt make sense

i have the proof somewhere in my calc II notebook saying .999999 (repeating) is 1. but i doubt class would bother even seeing it

Fuck that, I want to understand how I'm wrong. I feel like the guy from the "kg of bricks and feathers"

Quote from: Verbatim on February 06, 2017, 03:16:29 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on February 06, 2017, 03:11:32 PM

EVEN IF IT WAS ENDLESS, it does not equal 1/3. It will always have infinitely less decimal places than it needs to be 1/3.

won't there will always be the precise number of decimal places needed

because it's endless

Quote

If you need clarification to the second paragraph, I don't know what to tell you.

oh good, because i do

you tell me, "sorry for typing a sentence that reads like it was written by a 9 year old," and then you clarify

No, it will always be infinitely less than than the number of decimal places needed, because you can't express 1/3 as a number. No matter how far you measure it, the "decimal form" (which shouldn't exist) of 1/3 will ALWAYS be less than the expression. You could go on eternally, for all of time and then some, and it would never, ever, ever be 1/3.

in base 3, 1/3 is represented as .1 retard