Damo and Water need Schooling Again on 1/3

Dixie said:
I have got to say, this is the most intriguing phenomenon I think I have ever seen. A record-setting number of threads and posts on this simple little subject. You would think, a simple little mathematical problem would be something everyone (with intelligence) could agree on, after all, math is not subject to our opinions at all. Math is math, it doesn't change depending on our viewpoint or politics, but for some odd reason, this particular problem is generating enormous controversy.

It is important to remember the things I have NOT said here. Yes, we can "represent" numbers in all sorts of ways, not all of them have numeric value. For instance, I can say X=1... but X is not a numeric value, it is a letter. X only represents the value I assigned. Several times in this thread, people have hit on the truth, that fractions are not numbers, they are "representations" of a value. 1/3 is a way of expressing 1 of 3 parts of a whole. I have never said that things can't be divided by 3, or that we can't assume equal thirds, we do so all the time. I have never said something as silly as 1/3 doesn't exist, or I don't believe in 1/3, but time and time again, some pinhead will throw this up in my face on the board, as if I have said that.

The point keeps being made about other base number systems, for instance, in base 12, 1/3 can be divided evenly, but are the values of '1' and '3' in base 12, the same as base 10? Things don't alter themselves because we use a base 12 system, do they? So we can assume the value of 1 in base 10, is actually 1.2 in base 12. Now, 1.2 can be divided evenly by 3. I have not claimed otherwise. My only point has been about base 10 and the values of 1 and 3. No need to complicate that, my point doesn't need complication. When you divide 1 by 3, you end up with a remainder. Again, this is math, not an opinion which can be agreed with or disagreed with. Either 1 divided by 3 produces a remainder or it doesn't, there is no middle ground, there is no gray area. If it doesn't divide evenly, and does produce a remainder, we can conclude that an even division is not possible. That is the only point I have ever made, and it's about the simplest point you can make in math, other than 1+1! Now, if I had claimed that 1+1 didn't produce an even number, perhaps I could understand 5,000 posts to "correct" me, but that isn't what was said at all.
Click to expand...

Translation: 'no, I have not been embarrassed enough yet. I will continue to spew forth my nonsense and pretend to be perplexed at why people are laughing at me'
 
Dixie said:
I have got to say, this is the most intriguing phenomenon I think I have ever seen. A record-setting number of threads and posts on this simple little subject. You would think, a simple little mathematical problem would be something everyone (with intelligence) could agree on, after all, math is not subject to our opinions at all. Math is math, it doesn't change depending on our viewpoint or politics, but for some odd reason, this particular problem is generating enormous controversy.
Click to expand...

Yes, even in subjects that are objective and can be proved definitively you refuse to change your initial opinion. You're THAT hard headed. That is what's so amazing about this subject.

Dixie said:
It is important to remember the things I have NOT said here. Yes, we can "represent" numbers in all sorts of ways, not all of them have numeric value. For instance, I can say X=1... but X is not a numeric value, it is a letter. X only represents the value I assigned.
Click to expand...

No, dixie, you are again being retarded. You are talking about algebra. This has absolutely nothing to do with algebra. This is set theory. If I made a number system that counted like T, X, Y, Z, TX, TY, TZ, then yes, X would be equal to the value "1" in the decimal system.

Dixie said:
Several times in this thread, people have hit on the truth, that fractions are not numbers, they are "representations" of a value. 1/3 is a way of expressing 1 of 3 parts of a whole.
Click to expand...

WTF? Utterly retarded. Everything is a representation of a number. 1 is a representation of 1. 1/3 is a representation of 1/3. 0.3333e is a representation of 1/3.

You hit on (one) of your core problems in misunderstanding this here. You think that there is a true and objective "number", and that this is only the decimal system. BUT THE DECIMAL SYSTEM ITSELF IS ONLY A REPRESENTATION OF A NUMBER.

Dixie said:
I have never said that things can't be divided by 3, or that we can't assume equal thirds, we do so all the time. I have never said something as silly as 1/3 doesn't exist, or I don't believe in 1/3, but time and time again, some pinhead will throw this up in my face on the board, as if I have said that.
Click to expand...

Yes, Dixie, you HAVE said all of that, you are just CONTRADICTING YOURSELF NOW, adn are PRETENDING to not have said it, because you think that this position you've retreated to is safe. It's not.


Dixie said:
The point keeps being made about other base number systems, for instance, in base 12, 1/3 can be divided evenly, but are the values of '1' and '3' in base 12, the same as base 10? Things don't alter themselves because we use a base 12 system, do they? So we can assume the value of 1 in base 10, is actually 1.2 in base 12.
Click to expand...

OMFGOMFGOMFGOMFG!!!!!!!111

IN BASE 12, 1 IS EQUAL TO 1 YOU RETARD!


Dixie said:
Now, 1.2 can be divided evenly by 3. I have not claimed otherwise. My only point has been about base 10 and the values of 1 and 3. No need to complicate that, my point doesn't need complication. When you divide 1 by 3, you end up with a remainder. Again, this is math, not an opinion which can be agreed with or disagreed with. Either 1 divided by 3 produces a remainder or it doesn't, there is no middle ground, there is no gray area.
Click to expand...

In decimal notation it divides and produces a remainder. This is not a problem. It does not in any way change the value of 1/3. The infinite repeating form of 1/3 in pure decimal notation is inconvenient but it's not the problem you're making it out to be.


Dixie said:
If it doesn't divide evenly, and does produce a remainder, we can conclude that an even division is not possible. That is the only point I have ever made, and it's about the simplest point you can make in math, other than 1+1! Now, if I had claimed that 1+1 didn't produce an even number, perhaps I could understand 5,000 posts to "correct" me, but that isn't what was said at all.
Click to expand...

Dixie, an even division is possible. 0.33333e. I have just divided one into three evenly in decimal notation.
 
Watermark said:
OMFGOMFGOMFGOMFG!!!!!!!111

IN BASE 12, 1 IS EQUAL TO 1 YOU RETARD!
Click to expand...

???...uh, no.....an object with a weight described as "1" unit in a base 10 system would be equal to a weight of "1.2" units in a base 12 system.....unless of course, you also choose to redefine the meaning of unit.....which might result in saying for example, that "1 ounce" equals "47 tons"......do you begin to understand why this argument is simply about methods of communication rather than physics?......
 
Last edited:
IN BASE 12, 1 IS EQUAL TO 1 YOU RETARD!
Click to expand...

1 is indeed equal to 1 in base 12, but 1 in base 12 is not equal to 1 in base 10, is it? Nope... the value of "1" changed when you changed base systems. You are therefore, no longer dealing with the same values. In base 12, the value of "1" in base 10, is now changed.

Let me blow your little mind some more Waterhead...

If I had an Apple in base 10, and I took it to base 12, it would only be .83333 of an Apple! In order to have a whole base 12 Apple, I would have to have my base 10 apple, and .2 of another base 10 apple added to it, then I would have "1" base 12 apple.

:D
 
Dixie said:
Several times in this thread, people have hit on the truth, that fractions are not numbers, they are "representations" of a value.
Click to expand...

Numbers are representations of a value. More precisely they are a certain set of symbols we use to represent values. They are not the value. Whether you say 1 or the word one or I (in roman numerals) you still are only using symbol(s) to represent a value. Whether you say 1/3, one third or .3333e, you are still only using symbols to represent a value. The symbols are completely arbitrary.

Dixie said:
The point keeps being made about other base number systems, for instance, in base 12, 1/3 can be divided evenly, but are the values of '1' and '3' in base 12, the same as base 10? Things don't alter themselves because we use a base 12 system, do they? So we can assume the value of 1 in base 10, is actually 1.2 in base 12. Now, 1.2 can be divided evenly by 3.
Click to expand...

LOL. 1 and 3 in base 10 are 1 and 3 in base 12. Now 10, in base 12 would need to be represented with some other symbol, i.e., A, simply because we don't want two characters representing one place. But that does alter the value either symbol represents.

You, apparently, can't separate the symbol from the value it represents. When you see the word "lion" are you frightened that it might kill you?

You are exactly what Rand was talking about when she talked about the concrete bound.
 
RStringfield said:
Numbers are representations of a value. More precisely they are a certain set of symbols we use to represent values. They are not the value. Whether you say 1 or the word one or I (in roman numerals) you still are only using symbol(s) to represent a value. Whether you say 1/3, one third or .3333e, you are still only using symbols to represent a value. The symbols are completely arbitrary.



LOL. 1 and 3 in base 10 are 1 and 3 in base 12. Now 10, in base 12 would need to be represented with some other symbol, i.e., A, simply because we don't want two characters representing one place. But that does alter the value either symbol represents.

You, apparently, can't separate the symbol from the value it represents. When you see the word "lion" are you frightened that it might kill you?

You are exactly what Rand was talking about when she talked about the concrete bound.
Click to expand...

Ron, what do you think about this problem:
"Say that Jane and Joan (who are unrelated) each has two children. We know that at least one of Jane's children is a boy and that Joan's oldest child is a boy. What are the odds that each of the women has 2 boys?"
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=16657&highlight=smartest

MottleyDude, me, the smartest woman in the world (where I got this problem from) and countless math professors (who use this problem in class) got the right answer, but Damo, Thorn and Super (and I think a few others) went forever trying to say we were wrong.
I want to know what you think.
 
Dixie said:
1 is indeed equal to 1 in base 12, but 1 in base 12 is not equal to 1 in base 10, is it?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Dixie said:
Nope... the value of "1" changed when you changed base systems. You are therefore, no longer dealing with the same values. In base 12, the value of "1" in base 10, is now changed.
Click to expand...

In common usage 1 equals a single instance. 1=1 in all base systems.

Dixie said:
Let me blow your little mind some more Waterhead...

If I had an Apple in base 10, and I took it to base 12, it would only be .83333 of an Apple! In order to have a whole base 12 Apple, I would have to have my base 10 apple, and .2 of another base 10 apple added to it, then I would have "1" base 12 apple.

:D
Click to expand...

LMAO.... That's why I love when you bring this up again. It's always good for new laughs as you confuse yourself.

1 apple in base 12 equals 1 apple in base 10. 1/12 of an apple does not equal 1/10 of an apple, no dumbfuck, but that does not bolster your argument. We can certainly use .1 to represent both non integers in their respective base systems. In all instances 1 represents a single instance of the value whether it be used to represent the whole apple or a single part of the apple.
 
I am going to count in base 12.

1 == STILL ONE!!!!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A = 10
B = 11

10 = 12
11 = 13
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1A
1B
20 = 24

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
2A
2B

30 = 36

...
 
1 apple in base 12 equals 1 apple in base 10. 1/12 of an apple does not equal 1/10 of an apple, no dumbfuck, but that does not bolster your argument. We can certainly use .1 to represent both non integers in their respective base systems. In all instances 1 represents a single instance of the value whether it be used to represent the whole apple or a single part of the apple.
Click to expand...

Here is a good example of the breakdown of communication. I don't think I ever argued the point that is refuted here. Somehow, this is what String-in-the-butt read.

In all instances, 100% of the apple is equal to 100% of the apple. You can divide it into thirds, but never equally. One portion of the apple must be slightly more, to include the extra remainder. This extra amount may be so small it is insignificant, and we can assume that all three parts of the apple are equal. I can't remember what it is called, Nelson's Law? But there is some long exasperating formula in calculus and trigonometry, which is used to rectify this remainder in critical plotting calculus. I'll admit, I am not some math wizard who knows everything about it, but I am not some dumb hick who doesn't understand what a cotangent or square root is either. It doesn't take a math genius to understand that a remainder is produced whenever you divide one by three. Most 3rd graders understand it, why can't you guys? That's the part I don't get!
 
Dixie said:
Here is a good example of the breakdown of communication. I don't think I ever argued the point that is refuted here. Somehow, this is what String-in-the-butt read.
!
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
If I had an Apple in base 10, and I took it to base 12, it would only be .83333 of an Apple! In order to have a whole base 12 Apple, I would have to have my base 10 apple, and .2 of another base 10 apple added to it, then I would have "1" base 12 apple.
Click to expand...

:good4u:
 
KingCondanomation said:
Ron, what do you think about this problem:
"Say that Jane and Joan (who are unrelated) each has two children. We know that at least one of Jane's children is a boy and that Joan's oldest child is a boy. What are the odds that each of the women has 2 boys?"
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=16657&highlight=smartest

MottleyDude, me, the smartest woman in the world (where I got this problem from) and countless math professors (who use this problem in class) got the right answer, but Damo, Thorn and Super (and I think a few others) went forever trying to say we were wrong.
I want to know what you think.
Click to expand...

I am not real great on statistics and probabilities. I thought it was 1 in 4 at first, but my understanding is that you are right, it is 1 in 6.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top