Equal Thirds of One

Look... Try to understand it this way guys... Tell me the value of the highest number? Not the highest number you can count to, but THE highest number. Can you do that? Just tell me what is the highest number there is. The fact is, value of numbers extends to infinity and can not be defined. There is no "end" to numeric value, it literally goes forever. There are values beyond our practical use, there are values beyond our comprehension, but there is no "end" to numbers, they just keep going forever. The division of one into three parts, is the same thing, it continues forever, it is never resolved because there is always a remainder. For infinity, there is a remainder. Can we resolve 1/3? Of course, we do it all the time, Damo just posted a simple resolution, as have many others, but it assumes the remainder, it has to in order to be resolved.
 
Dixie said:
Look... Try to understand it this way guys... Tell me the value of the highest number? Not the highest number you can count to, but THE highest number. Can you do that? Just tell me what is the highest number there is. The fact is, value of numbers extends to infinity and can not be defined. There is no "end" to numeric value, it literally goes forever. There are values beyond our practical use, there are values beyond our comprehension, but there is no "end" to numbers, they just keep going forever. The division of one into three parts, is the same thing, it continues forever, it is never resolved because there is always a remainder. For infinity, there is a remainder. Can we resolve 1/3? Of course, we do it all the time, Damo just posted a simple resolution, as have many others, but it assumes the remainder, it has to in order to be resolved.
Click to expand...
It doesn't assume a remainder. It is a correct mathematical solution.

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1... It really is that simple. The assumption that all things must be expressed decimally is simply a poor assumption.
 
It doesn't assume a remainder.
Click to expand...

Well, yes it does, because 1/3 produces a remainder... where is it? what happened to it? where did that remaining portion go? YOU ASSUMED IT! It was assumed into one of the three parts, because it was insignificant to the application at some point.
 
Dixie said:
Well, yes it does, because 1/3 produces a remainder... where is it? what happened to it? where did that remaining portion go? YOU ASSUMED IT! It was assumed into one of the three parts, because it was insignificant to the application at some point.
Click to expand...
No, you dope. 3/3 does not give a remainder. Like the "missing dollar" you just do the math incorrectly then assume we all must follow.
 
Dixie said:
Your equation assumes the remainder. As I said, we assume the remainder and presume the problem as resolved, we have no other choice. Your assumption is not incorrect, it just isn't definitively equal. 1/3=.3333E and when you add that together 3 times, it comes out to .9999E, which is not 1, but as close as we can get to 1 without being 1. The remainder becomes insignificant at some point, depending on the application, but the remainder still exists. Maybe it is defined as "equal" to the closest tenth, hundredth, thousandth, millionth, billionth, or trillionth... depends on the application, but unless you know of some way to resolve the remainder, it can't be defined and must be assumed at some point down the line.
Click to expand...

You said key it in to a calculator. I did that and I don't get your result. I get 1.

It does not assume shit. Your answer assumes that the base 10 number system is the only possible way to represent a number and that it is more accurate than any other representation. It is not.

Go take an intro level computer class. They should teach you about base numbers.
 
I can't believe we are back here again.

It is only "impossible" to express 1/3 without a remainder if you are stuck without the capacity to view it outside of one box that you assume to be absolute.
 
Dixie said:
.999999999999999E

Which, for most practical purposes, is close enough to 1 to be assumed.
Click to expand...
Ladies and Gentlemen I give you the heart and soul of the modern right wing movement in America. Tell him the sky is blue and he will argue. Tell him Ice is cold and he will argue the definition of cold. Is 32 REALLY cold is absolutely ZERO cold? Tell him that someones brain was mush when it was autopsied and he will tell you the vessel holding that mushed "tracked a balloon". This is the very foundation of american right wing political thought.
 
Dixie, lets try getting you away from decimals for a moment.

In fact, skip the measurements and the symbols that mathematics involves.


Lets say that we have one pound of water. Are you telling me that we could not put exactly the same amount into three identical containers?

Are you trying to state that, a substance cannot be divided into three equal parts?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Who knows how to make a number negative in binary? 10 bonus points.
Click to expand...
Negative numbers are represented in Binary by putting the - sign in front of them.

You use a "sign bit"...

Here is a nice chart for you:

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 127
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 = 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 = 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = −1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 = −2
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 = −127
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = −128

The first digit of each of these is the "sign bit". In binary it is possible to express odd things like -0 and other such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top